Real contact total length of linear motion roller guide without preload based on Greenwood–Williamson rough contact model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In traditional studies of linear motion roller guide, the static stiffness is a main indicator to evaluate the mechanical behavior. However, the local contact profile between the roller and raceway surface, although very important to the precision maintenance, cannot be reflected in the measured value of static stiffness. In this article, a new indicator, named the real contact total length (RCTL), is proposed based on the Greenwood–Williamson model and the Hertz contact theory. In particular, an electric contact model is presented where the RCTL of linear motion roller guide without preload is expressed in terms of the measured electric resistances. To verify the model, an experiment is conducted to measure the electric resistances under different vertical loads by a designed load test bench and a digital, direct-current, high-resolution electric resistance meter (DRRM). The test results show good agreement with the model. Based on the electric contact model, the main parameters that affect the RCTL value are roughness R a and the length of roller, which are directly related to the mechanical behavior of linear motion roller guide in the design and manufacture stages.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".