Capability Profiles
D31.5 disc spring A-L vs FEM computational validation
Point-by-point load-deflection comparison between Almen-László theory and Abaqus Standard FEM for the D31.5 disc spring. The study has no experiment source; it is a computational/FEM comparison, not test validation.
公开 D31.5 碟形弹簧 A-L 理论与 FEM 计算相关性的可复核能力边界。
来源为已批准 d315-r025-al-correlation 证据包；experiment_source 为空；公开窗口 20%–75% h0，75% h0 偏差 +1.5709%，100% 接触锁死段排除。
Point-by-point load-deflection comparison between Almen-László theory and Abaqus Standard FEM for the D31.5 disc spring. The study has no experiment source; it is a computational/FEM comparison, not test validation.
In-house
The study has no experiment source. It demonstrates computational correlation between A-L theory and FEM only, is limited to the recorded geometry and material parameters, and is neither physical test validation nor a measured performance promise.
Applicable scope
A-L theoretical versus Abaqus FEM load-deflection correlation for a D31.5 disc spring (D×d×t×H0 = 31.50×16.30×1.75×2.45 mm).
Key ranges
- thicknessMm
- 1.75
- freeHeightMm
- 2.45
- outerDiameterMm
- 31.5
- comparisonPoints
- 30
- insideDiameterMm
- 16.3
Controlled parameters
- solver
- Abaqus Standard
- alSource
- polysplendid_engine.py
- studyVersion
- 1.0
- geometryVersion
- d315-r025-v1
- experimentSource
- null
Available quality records
- report
- 研究详情见 /engineering/fem/d315-r025-al-correlation
- evidencePackage
- fem_evidence_packages（d315-r025-al-correlation，已审核）
- comparisonPoints
- fem_studies.comparison_points（A-L/FEM 逐点对比）
Evidence
Computational/FEM labels describe simulation and calculation work; Experimental validation only appears with reviewed test data.
Validation object
This capability record covers a D31.5 × 16.3 × 1.75 × 2.45 mm, R0.25 disc spring. It compares Almen-László theoretical loads with Abaqus Standard FEM results at matching deflection points.
Approved conclusion
The public applicability window is 20%–75% h0. At 75% h0, the same-deflection FEM load differs from the A-L result by +1.5709%. Full rigid-platen contact near 100% h0 causes numerical locking, so that region remains in the controlled raw result and is excluded from the public validation conclusion.
Evidence boundary
The study has no experiment_source. Its evidence level is computational correlation between A-L theory and FEM, not physical test validation. The conclusion is limited to the recorded geometry, material and model conditions and must not be generalized as measured performance of another size or production batch. The comparison points and approved evidence package are traceable at /engineering/fem/d315-r025-al-correlation.