MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075453212 · doi:10.1115/detc2003/ptg-48056

Cutter Interchangeability for Spiral-Bevel and Hypoid Gear Manufacturing

2003· article· en· W2075453212 on OpenAlexaff
Claude Gosselin, Jack Masseth, Wei Liang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGear and Bearing Dynamics Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPinionSpiral bevel gearInterchangeabilityBevel gearSpiral (railway)EngineeringManufacturing costMechanical engineeringCycloid gearAutomotive engineeringStructural engineeringComputer scienceEngineering drawingRack

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the manufacturing of spiral-bevel and hypoid gears, circular cutter dimensions are usually based on the desired performance of a gear set. In large manufacturing operations, where several hundred gear geometries may have been cut over the years, the necessary cutter inventory may become quite large since the cutter diameters will differ from one geometry to another, which results in used storage space and associated costs in purchasing and maintaining the cutter parts. Interchangeability of cutters is therefore of significant interest to reduce cost while maintaining approved tooth geometries. An algorithm is presented which allows the use of a different cutter, either in diameter and/or pressure angle, to obtain the same tooth flank surface topography. A test case is presented to illustrate the usefulness of the method: the OB cutter diameter of an hypoid pinion is changed from 8.9500" to 9.1000". CMM results and the comparison of the bearing patterns before and after change show excellent correlation, and indicate that the new pinion can be used in place of the original pinion without performance or quality problems. Significant cost reductions may be obtained with the application of the method.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGear and Bearing Dynamics AnalysisFrench-language works237,207