MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210508942 · doi:10.5957/pss-2003-16

Propulsion Shaftline Bearing and Gear Teeth Failure Investigation on the "C" Class British Columbia Ferries

2003· article· en· W4210508942 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B Cowper, Alex Kolomojcev, Pulau Pinang, Greg Stewart

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Failure Analysis and Simulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPinionPropellerPropulsionMarine engineeringEngineeringTonnageBearing (navigation)Structural engineeringAutomotive engineeringMechanical engineeringGeologyComputer scienceRack

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. operates five "C" class passenger-car ferries that were delivered in 1976 (3 ships) and 1981 (2 ships). The vessels have a service speed of 19.0 knots, are 457 ft. long, and have a gross tonnage of 6,550 tons. They have a capacity of about 360 cars and 1,500 passengers. Their route varies from Vancouver-Vancouver Island-Sunshine Coast, with up to 9 round trips per day. The vessels have a double-ended single screw propeller configuration. Each of the controllable pitch propellers are driven by one or two diesel engines rated at 5,930 HP, through single reduction gearboxes. The two gearboxes are connected via quill shafts that are concentric with the pinion shafts. The pinion shafts are engaged via clutches at the end of each of the quill shafts. This arrangement enables one or both of the diesel engines to drive either one or both of the propellers. In 1998 a catastrophic failure occurred to the bull wheel on one vessel. The bull gear teeth broke off taking out both pinions. In 1999 the bull gear on another vessel was replaced as a result of fractured gear teeth, found during an inspection. In addition, a number of failures have occurred to both the lineshaft and pinion shaft bearings. An investigation was conducted to determine the source of the failures and the most prudent and economical course of action. To accomplish these objectives a review of the system design and maintenance/failure history was conducted, as well as theoretical modeling and alignment and vibration measurements. It was found that the failures occurred due to misalignment. A realignment program has been undertaken, with the first realignment completed in February 2002. This paper describes the failure investigation and the results of the realignment work conducted.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechanical Failure Analysis and SimulationFrench-language works237,207