MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An analytical method for time-varying mesh stiffness calculation for straight bevel gears under spalling conditions

2025· article· en· W4411087093 on OpenAlexaff
Zichen Zhu, Yang Luo, Natalie Baddour, Juanjuan Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGear and Bearing Dynamics Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSouth China University of TechnologyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSpallBevel gearStiffnessStructural engineeringBevelWellboreMaterials scienceComputer scienceMechanicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysicsPetroleum engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tooth spall is a prevalent gear fault that reduces mesh stiffness and adversely affects transmission ability of gear systems. While plenty of research focuses on tooth spall faults in spur and helical gears, few analytical approaches were established to calculate the time-varying mesh stiffness in straight bevel gears, especially those affected by tooth spall. This deficiency can be attributed to the lack of an accurate tooth spall model. This paper proposes an approach for straight bevel gears mesh stiffness calculation with a curved-bottom spall. The spur gear spall model is modified to adapt to the tooth profile in straight bevel gears. The time-varying mesh stiffness calculation formulas are then revised in spall region. Using potential energy, Hertzian contact stiffness is calculated considering load distribution between gear teeth. The foundation stiffness calculation is updated considering practical gear shape. Tooth stiffness caused by axial forces is also considered. Finite element analysis is utilized for the theoretical method verification, which suggests a high consistency of results between two methods. The low error between the proposed approach and finite element approach implies that the proposed method is acceptable for practical use.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicGear and Bearing Dynamics AnalysisFrench-language works237,207