MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519750539 · doi:10.1108/rpj-10-2014-0146

A study on revolute joints in 3D-printed non-assembly mechanisms

2016· article· en· W2519750539 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRapid Prototyping Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersHong Kong University of Science and Technology
KeywordsRevolute jointCADFused deposition modelingEngineering drawingProcess (computing)Design processComputer Aided DesignComputer scienceJoins3d printedConfiguration designJoint (building)Engineering design processMechanical engineeringEngineering3D printingStructural engineeringManufacturing engineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore a new design for the journal of revolute joints that can improve the dynamic performance of 3D printed non-assembly mechanisms. Design/methodology/approach The design improves upon previous proposed designs that use drum-shaped journals in place of cylindrical ones. The authors introduce an innovative new worm-shaped journal. The authors also propose a systematic and efficient procedure to identify the best parameter values for defining the exact shape of the journal. Using three different mechanisms for the experiments, the paper constructs 3D computer-aided design (CAD) models using the design as well as cylindrical and drum-shaped designs. The parameters for the optimum geometry for each type of design are determined by dynamic simulation using the CAD system. Actual prototypes of the ideal designs are constructed using a commercial fused deposition modeling (FDM) machine for physical comparisons. Findings This paper shows that in simulations as well in physical models, the proposed design outperforms the previous designs significantly. Research limitations/implications This study was mainly focused on the FDM process, and the authors have not yet explored other processes. One limitation of this approach is that it requires the mechanism to be printed along the axial direction of the revolute joint. Originality/value This paper proposes a new design for the journal in 3D printed revolute joints. A clear advantage of the design is that it can easily be used to replace normal revolute joins in non-assembly models without affecting any other parts of the geometry. Therefore, with relatively little effort, the authors can print non-assembly mechanisms with improved dynamic performance.

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 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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · 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