MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924615849 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2017-0135

Structure analysis of a dragline tooth and its wear prediction

2019· article· en· W2924615849 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Manbodh Kumar Das, Shibayan Sarkar, Bhanwar Singh Choudhary

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
Keywordsvon Mises yield criterionMaterials scienceFinite element methodDeformation (meteorology)Structural engineeringSafety factorOverburdenWorkbenchEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionFracture (geology)CrackingStress (linguistics)MetallurgyComposite materialEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dragline teeth are used to dig overburden rocks and fill the bucket by its action in surface mining. Thus, these teeth are very important for a better performance of the dragline. In the present investigation, efforts were made to determine the failure zone within the teeth through modeling, using the finite element software ANSYS workbench. The maximum deformation and maximum von-Mises stress were 0.286 mm and 801.38 MPa, respectively. From fatigue analysis, the minimum tool life was 24 540 cycle and the minimum factor of safety was 0.1 at the tip of the tool. Beyond the cutting edge (tip), the factor of safety was greater than 1.13. Finite element analysis was extended by varying the working load on the edge of the tool (68–86 tonnes) as well as the cutting angle (30°–36°). It was found that if the working load was increased, both corresponding maximum deformation and maximum von-Mises stress were increased, while the factor of safety was decreased. In the scanning electron microscopy analysis, wear phenomena such as rock intermixed, fracture of WC-grain, oxidized WC-grain, plastic deformation, cavity formation, cracking, and crushing were visible at magnification of 1000×.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207