Influence of different combinations of high-order topological modification on contact pattern and load distribution of helical gear
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An integrated model is proposed to evaluate the contact pattern and load distribution of helical gear with different combinations of high-order topological modification, which is established combining the finite element method (FEM), the analytical method (AM), and the nonlinear programming method. Based on the elastomer contact model of tooth surface, the FEM is used to separate the flexural-shear deformation of the teeth, while the contact AM is introduced to derive the local contact deformation. The contact characteristics of gears can be finally obtained by solving the nonlinear programming model with the constraints of deformation and load and finally verified by the finite element analysis. The results show that the longitudinal crowning can significantly improve the load distribution and the edge contact of the tooth. When the modified curve becomes a parabola of higher order, the contact characteristics change obviously. The pressure of double-crowned (4) gears was uniform and the amplitude decreased, but the amplitude of pressure of double-crowned (6) gears increases and the variance of load sharing ratio is more obvious at the beginning of the middle meshing period.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".