Knowledge-Based Structure Optimization Design for Boom of Excavator
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the design optimization of the excavator boom, there are many design variables and complicated processes. The original optimization methods mainly focused on the optimization of mathematical models, and they lacked consideration in the use of domain knowledge, design-specification knowledge, expert experience knowledge, and historical examples. In order to comprehensively utilize the domain knowledge and expert experience knowledge, this study uses the optimization process analysis, uses knowledge expression and coding processing technology to encode the boom structure, builds an optimal design coding system based on knowledge guidance, and realizes the automatic optimization design of the boom structure. In the process of constructing the knowledge-oriented optimization system, to realize the reuse of the knowledge of the boom structure design in the numerical optimization iteration, a knowledge processing flowchart of the boom structure design is constructed. The concept of “shape distance” is proposed to judge the similarity feature matrix of the boom structure coding. To evaluate whether the stress distribution is uniform, a fast prediction model based on stress characteristic regions is constructed. The research results show that, under the comprehensive consideration of the four working conditions, the knowledge-guided optimization of the boom structure can avoid the deformity in the optimization process, accelerate the calculation speed of the optimization model, and improve the optimization quality of the 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.
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 it