MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386323815 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290427

Study the muti-bolt fastening under different load positions in gear rack drilling rig

2023· article· en· W4386323815 on OpenAlexaff
Jiangang Wang, Lei Shi, Ding Feng, Yiliu Tu

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical stress and fatigue analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Major Science and Technology Projects of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRackBolted jointStructural engineeringFinite element methodStiffnessLoad distributionMechanism (biology)Drilling rigEngineeringDrillingMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the operation of drilling rigs, bolts are subjected to significant loads, rendering bolt groups vulnerable to failure due to uneven load distribution. This study investigates the multi-bolt load distribution characteristics of eight-gear and four-gear symmetric transmission mechanisms in drilling rigs. The spring stiffness method is utilized to analyze multi-bolt load distribution. A finite element model of the bolted connection is developed by integrating the structural shape and transmission mechanism. The model's accuracy is validated through a rack strain test under various loads. Based on the finite element analysis results, this study proposes an evaluation method for bolted connections using relative deformation difference. The impacts of bolt pitch, end distance, preload, and thickness of the derrick connection plate under different load positions on the connection are examined. This paper presents a methodology and conclusions that can inform the design of bolted connections for heavy-duty drive systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMechanical stress and fatigue analysisFrench-language works237,207