Mechanical Analyses of Multi-piece Mining Vehicle Wheels to Enhance Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, experimental and numerical methods were used to analyse the performance of multi-piece wheel structures and two proposed innovative designs to enhance safety were validated by computer simulations. Fatality report analyses revealed that the majority (90%) of the multi-piece wheel failures were caused by use of lock rings. Experimental tire and rim base tests were conducted to understand the deflection characteristics of off-the-road tires and to validate the finite element model of a five-piece wheel/tire (sized 29.5-29) assembly. A linear relationship was found between the vertical displacement of the wheel and the maximum lateral deflection of the tire for both static and quasi static loading tests. A robust tire model was validated with an average accumulative error of 9.7% and an average validation metric of 0.96 for tire deflections, compared to the experimental tests. The rim base model was validated with an average error of 7.6% and an average validation metric of 0.93 for wheel deformations, and an average accumulative error of 12.7% and an average validation metric of 0.88 for strains, compared to experimental tests. Based on validated FE model of the five-piece wheel/tire assembly, geometry degradation (material wear out at critical regions) and material degradation (fatigue and corrosion) were studied to estimate their effects on fatigue lives. Two design innovations were proposed to enhance safety and fatigue life of the five-piece wheel. The threaded-connection design reduced the possibility of failure due to the mismatched wheel components. The BS band pull-out simulation revealed that the threaded-connection design was twice as strong as the conventional five-piece design in holding wheel components and the tire together, and the wheel may fail in a safer mode. The fatigue lives of the rim base were two orders of magnitude higher than those of the conventional five-piece wheel. The two-piece wheel design completely removed the possibility of wheel failure due to mismatched wheel components; the fatigue lives were increased by over two orders of magnitude, compared to the conventional five-piece wheel.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".