Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report is the final documentation for the Powered Harrow Wheel that our team has been designing for Elmer’s Manufacturing. Elmer’s Manufacturing is currently undergoing a major overhaul on their current flagship product the Super7 Harrow within their engineering department and has approached the University of Manitoba to assist with the Harrow Wing wheel redesign. Elmer’s Manufacturing is currently having problems with their existing Harrow wing wheel system due to a lack of operator convenience, a high number of redundant parts, and performance issues with their existing wheel system. Elmer’s Manufacturing is hoping the design team is able to design a single pivoting and optionally powered wheel system to replace the current two-wheel system design. During the initial phase of the design, the team has developed a list of customer needs and specifications metrics to avoid scope creep during the design phase. A house of quality was developed to capture the relevance and the importance between the customer needs and specification metrics. This information would help the team during the concept generation and selection phase due to the establishment of a clear priority. From the information gathered during the initial phase, the team has determined 4 critical motion components to develop in order to assembly the wheel system. The motion components are mode transition motion, power transmission method, power steering motion, and power drive module. During the concept selection section phase, the team has come up with 48 ideas for mode transition motion, 5 possible power transmission concepts, 2 options for power steering motion, and 2 options for power drive modules. The team then evaluated those concepts through a combination of customer feedback and an extensive weighted screening process. By the end of the process, the team has chosen a bicycle like wheel frame for mode transition motion, a chain and sprocket for power transmission method, a hydraulic motor for power drive module, and a hydraulic cylinder for power steering motion. In the final design section, the team used various analytical methods such as MATLAB, Excel coding, Finite Element Analysis, and hand engineering calculations to determine the safety and satisfaction of design requirements for each individual module on the wheel design. All wheel modules must pass a minimum factor of safety 2 and be able to provide 2.0G fatigue impact resistance with occasional 2.5G shock resistance. A CAD model and assembly drawings of the Wheel system is made for both powered and nonpowered wheel option. Comparing our final design to the original design metrics, the team has met almost all metrics. The following points will show a summary of the critical achievement of the wheel design: - The wheel system is now able to replace the existing two wheels - The wheel system would provide more operator convenience due to fully automated wheels - The wheel system design is adaptable for all three Harrow sizes - The Power drive of the wheel system can be optional and able to be sold separately - The wheel system has a service life longer than 4 years The cost of the system would estimate to be $4686.62 dollars for a pair of wheels without the power option, and both power modules would estimate to cost $3205.14 per pair. The report content would contain all aspects of decisions made and deep analytical analysis for each design component of the wheel design.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.277 | 0.153 |
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".