Service loads in dragline tubular structures: a case study of cluster A5
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Draglines are used extensively for removal of overburden in the coal mining industry. Draglines with tubular booms are among the structures most susceptible to fatigue cracking due to the large number of high load cycles to which they are subjected during operation. Circular hollow section tubes are used as both lacing and chord members. In this paper, a study was carried out to better understand the stresses in a 4-lacing cluster during operation. Strain gauges were installed on a typical dragline cluster A5 to measure strains generated while in operation. Static and dynamic (swing and digging) tests were carried out, and strains obtained during the different tests were used to calculate both nominal stresses and hot spot stresses. For cluster A5, the hot spot stresses at weld toes in the lacing members were found to be significantly larger than those at weld toes in the chord members. Bending stresses were found to form a relatively larger portion of the nominal stresses at the weld toes in the lacing members compared to chord members. The results of this work highlight a conclusion found in the authors' previous work that the high tensile residual stresses resulting from welding are an important issue not measured in hot spot stress testing, but these stresses are relevant to the levels and location of cracking observed in practice. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it