Modelling and Analysis of the Cone Coupling Problem Using Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A coupling is a mechanism that transmits operative power between two shafts that are revolving at different speeds. A coupling connects two shafts at their ends and can slip or fail depending on the torque limit. It is an essential component of any power transmission system and may survive for a very long time if properly designed and maintained. This study's current research, a newly developed optimization algorithms are used to minimize the volume of cone coupling. The current study presented here compares modern metaheuristic methods for optimizing the design of the cone coupling problem. The algorithms used are particle swarm optimization (PSO), crow search algorithm (CSA), enhanced honeybee mating optimization (EHBMO), Harmony search algorithm (HSA), Krill heard algorithm (KHA), Pattern search algorithm (PSA), Charged system search algorithm (CSSA), Salp swarm algorithm (SSA), Big bang big crunch optimization (B-BBBCO), Gradient based Algorithm (GBA). The performance of these algorithms is assessed both statistically and subjectively. The algorithms' performance is evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively using consistency, simplicity and quality. The experimental results on the cone clutch problem shows that PSO produces greater results than EHBMO, whereas CSA and BBCO produce approximately identical results.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".