MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2757861642 · doi:10.21013/jte.v8.n2.p3

An Optimization Procedure for Overhead Gantry Crane Exposed to Buckling and Yield Criteria

2017· article· en· W2757861642 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Ahmid, Van Ngan Lê, Thiên My Dao

Bibliographic record

VenueIRA-International Journal of Technology & Engineering (ISSN 2455-4480) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical stress and fatigue analysis
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlangeStructural engineeringBucklingDeflection (physics)WeldingTimoshenko beam theoryBeam (structure)WorkbenchFinite element methodEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The current study presents a general optimization procedure that could be used in designing of various structural applications. To validate the performance of the proposed procedure, a real life application of a custom welded I-Beam gantry crane is selected. The crane is composed of three rectangular plates with the same length and different thicknesses and widths welded together by full penetration welds over the span length to form an I-Beam profile. The thicknesses and widths of plates are to be optimized to have the minimum cross section area while respecting yield, buckling, deflection and fatigue criteria. A mathematical procedure based on Timoshenko beam theory and Crane Manufacturers Association of America (CMAA) in combination with the Genetic Algorithm (GA) is presented, and a Mathcad code is implemented to find the optimal I-Beam cross section dimensions. Nine examples are introduced for 8, 12 and 20 m crane span subjected to 10, 20 and 40-toncapacities. It is noticed that the optimized I-section configurations always show narrow and thick lower flange, wider and thinner upper flange and tall and very thin web. Theupper flange local buckling and the lateral buckling limits are achieved for all nine cases, 75% of cases for the web buckling limit, about 33% of cases for the fatigue and yield limits whereas the maximum deflection constraint is never critical. The obtained results were verified using ANSYS Workbench software with a 3D Solid Finite Element model and shown good agreement, which confirms that the proposed procedure is efficient.</p>

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.276
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIRA-International Journal of Technology & Engineering (ISSN 2455-4480)Same topicMechanical stress and fatigue analysisFrench-language works237,207