MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949064021 · doi:10.1108/ec-11-2018-0516

A comparison investigation of the contact models for contact and vibration features of cylindrical roller bearings

2019· article· en· W2949064021 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

VenueEngineering Computations · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGear and Bearing Dynamics Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacewayContact mechanicsStructural engineeringVibrationStiffnessDeformation (meteorology)Contact forceContact areaEngineeringContact regionDisplacement (psychology)MechanicsContact analysisFinite element methodMaterials scienceAcousticsComposite materialPhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the contact models for contact and vibration features of cylindrical roller bearings (CRBs). CRBs are important parts of rotating machinery. The contact deformation between the roller and the raceway is an essential research topic for the CRBs. The contact deformation between the roller and the raceway can greatly affect vibration characteristics and fatigue life of the CRBs. In this investigation, six different methods are adopted to calculate the contact deformation, contact area width and contact stress between the roller and raceways of a CRB. Design/methodology/approach In this paper, the contact deformations and the contact stiffnesses between the roller and the raceway of a CRB obtained by various well-known empirical methods (Lundberg’s, Palmgren’s, Houpert’s, Cheng’s and Hertzian methods) are directly compared with those by the finite element (FE) method. A two degree-of-freedom (2 DOF) dynamic model of the CRB is applied to investigate the effects of the contact stiffness obtained by different line contact deformation calculation methods on the vibration characteristics, such as the root mean square (RMS), the peak to peak (PTP), the crest factor and the kurtosis of the displacement, velocity and acceleration of the inner raceway. Findings The computational results show that different calculation methods for the contact deformations between rollers and raceways have significant effects on the vibrations of the CRB. It is found that that the differences of computational results obtained by Palmgren’s and Lundberg’s models with respect to the FE method are smaller than those by the other three methods, i.e. Houpert’s, Cheng’s and Hertzain models. The amplitude and peak frequency of the frequency response functions from Palmgren’s method are much more similar to those from the finite element method. The above results indicate that Palmgren’s method is a better calculation method for predicting the contact deformations and dynamics of the CRBs. Originality/value This work adopts six different methods to calculate the contact deformation, contact area width and contact stress between the roller and raceways of a CRB. Moreover, a vibration model of a CRB is used to investigate the effect of contact stiffness obtained by the above methods on the vibrations of the CRB. The works can give some guidance for the accurate analytical method for calculating the contact deformations between rollers and raceways and the vibrations of the CRB.

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)0.000
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 score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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