Contact fatigue model and life prediction of the compound motion curve-face gear pair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different from the common face gear pair fixed rotation motion between intersecting axes, the compound transmission of the curve-face gear is a new motion form, which can convert rotational motion into rotation and movement motion. To solve the contact fatigue life problem of this new motion form gear pair, a new contact fatigue life calculation method of the compound transmission curve-face gear pair was proposed. Based on the space gear engagement principle and the fracture mechanics theory, the theoretical contact fatigue model of the curve-face gear composite transmission was established. Considering that the contact load for every tooth is time-varying in the half-period of the curve-face gear, the contact fatigue life stage of the curve-face gear was divided into crack initiation and crack growth, and the crack growth fatigue life for each tooth was calculated using the finite element method. The curve-face gear pair was processed in the five-axis NC machining center and the compound transmission experiment platform of the curve-face gear was set up to measure the tooth surface dynamic contact stress, and the overall life of the curve-face gear was predicted. The comparison analysis between theoretical and experimental results verified the correctness of the theoretical contact fatigue calculation model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".