English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The paper presents a comparison of six recently introduced multiaxial fatigue strength estimation criteria to four methods, the large-scope validation of which has already been published. The results obtained for each newer method are analyzed and discussed. From the newer methods, only the criterion by Böhme reaches an estimation quality similar to the best performing criteria. The validation was performed on the FatLim data sets, but the primary focus of the paper is set to analyzing the validation on a smaller AMSD25 data set derived from it. The comparison shows that the application of AMSD25 for validation practice allows users to reduce the number of evaluated test cases, while generally preserving the worst cases showing the weaknesses of various estimation methods.

Benchmarking Newer Multiaxial Fatigue Strength Criteria on Data Sets of Various Sizes