# Comparison of Stress Concentration Factors Obtained by Different Methods
## 9 Summary Evaluation of the Analyses Performed and Results Obtained
### Evaluation of the Differences between the Obtained and Imported Stress Concentration Factors  
The evaluation of the differences \(\Delta\alpha_{\rm CI}\) and \(\Delta\alpha_{\rm TI}\) between the stress concentration factors \(\alpha_{\rm VM}\) obtained by FEM analyses and the imported stress concentration factors \(\alpha_{\rm CI}\) and \(\alpha_{\rm TI}\) is performed in two bands separately for \(D/d\) in the 1 st band from 1.01 to 1.10 and in the 2 nd band from 1.2 to 3.0. In the 1 st \(D/d\) band from 1.01 to 1.10, the lines for \(\Delta\alpha_{\rm CI}\) form a relatively compact bundle of lines in a relatively narrow range of approximately \(-\)3-0%. The only exception is the line for the largest ratio \(D/d\) = 1.10, for which in the lower \(r/d\) range the of \(\Delta\alpha_{\rm CI}\) value reaches an anomalous level of up to \(-\)8%. This implies that the \(\alpha_{\rm CI}\) quantities are slightly to moderately underestimated in this \(D/d\) band relative to the \(\alpha_{\rm VM}\) quantities. The lines for \(\Delta\alpha_{\rm TI}\) are already less compact with respect to each other. There is a tendency for \(\alpha_{\rm TI}\) to be significantly underestimated relative to \(\alpha_{\rm VM}\) in the range \(-\)13 to \(-\)7% for \(D/d\) = 1.01 to a tendency for \(\alpha_{\rm TI}\) to be slightly overestimated relative to \(\alpha_{\rm VM}\) in the range 7.5-5% for \(D/d\) = 1.10 Thus, overall, the values of \(\alpha_{\rm CI}\) and \(\alpha_{\rm TI}\) relative to the values of \(\alpha_{\rm VM}\) in this \(D/d\) band range with a difference in the larger interval \(-\)13 to 7.5% for the lower \(r/d\) range to the gradually narrowing interval \(-\)7 to 5% for the upper \(r/d\) range. In the 2 nd band, i.e., for \(D/d\) from 1.2 to 3.0 in terms of the differences \(\Delta\alpha_{\rm CI}\) and \(\Delta\alpha_{\rm TI}\), a remarkable phenomenon can be observed to some extent. Indeed, in the compactness/non-compactness and underestimation/overestimation tendencies, the quantities \(\alpha_{\rm CI}\) and \(\alpha_{\rm TI}\) have switched roles. The quantities \(\Delta\alpha_{\rm CI}\) form a less compact bundle of lines. At the same time, there is a tendency for the \(\alpha_{\rm CI}\) quantity to underestimate the \(\alpha_{\rm VM}\) quantity in the range \(-\)7 to \(-\)3% for the lower range of \(r/d\) values and all \(D/d\) ratios to a tendency for the \(\alpha_{\rm Ct}\) quantity to overestimate the \(\alpha_{\rm VM}\) quantity in the range 0-6% for the upper range of \(r/d\) values and again for all \(D/d\) ratios. The \(\Delta\alpha_{\rm TI}\) quantities here form a fairly compact bundle of lines in the range 6.5-9% for the lower range of \(r/d\) values and all \(D/d\) ratios to the range 5-7% for the upper range of \(r/d\) values and all \(D/d\) ratios. Hence, the \(\alpha_{\rm TI}\) quantities are overestimated in this \(D/d\) range relative to the \(\alpha_{\rm VM}\) quantities in the range of 5-9% for the entire range of \(r/d\) ratios. Thus, overall, the values of \(\alpha_{\rm Ct}\) and \(\alpha_{\rm TI}\) relative to the values of \(\alpha_{\rm VM}\) in this \(D/d\) band range with a difference in the larger interval of 7 to 9% for the lower \(r/d\) range to a progressively narrower interval of 0 to 7% for the upper \(r/d\) range. The tendency for the range of differences of the values of the stress concentration factors \(\alpha_{\rm Ct}\) and \(\alpha_{\rm TI}\) to change with respect to the values of \(\alpha_{\rm VM}\) from the lower range of \(r/d\) ratios (the larger range of differences \(\Delta\alpha\)) to the upper range of \(r/d\) ratios (the smaller range of differences \(\Delta\alpha\)) is exactly the same in the two bands for \(D/d\). Thus, in some cases, the analyses found differences dependent on the \(r/d\) ratio with no apparent dependence on \(D/d\). In some other cases, the opposite was true. In the remaining cases, no trend dependence was found, i.e., neither on \(r/d\) ratios nor on \(D/d\) ratios.