MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999172776 · doi:10.1109/tmech.2015.2395437

Regenerative Shock Absorber Using a Two-Leg Motion Conversion Mechanism

2015· article· en· W1999172776 on OpenAlexafffund
Amir Maravandi, Mehrdad Moallem

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration Control and Rheological Fluids
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsShock absorberDamperMechanism (biology)Control theory (sociology)Shock (circulatory)ExcitationSuspension (topology)Mechanical engineeringMaterials scienceAcousticsPhysicsMechanicsComputer scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the development of a novel regenerative shock absorber sized for a passenger car suspension system. The shock absorber includes a simple and highly efficient motion converter called a two-leg mechanism , a planetary gearhead, and a brushless three-phase rotary machine. The design and analysis of the regenerative shock absorber are presented by considering the dynamics and efficiency of the electromechanical device. The performance of the regenerative damper is evaluated under sinusoidal excitation inputs for typical amplitudes and frequencies in a vehicular suspension system. Experimental results show that a damping coefficient of $1720$ N$\cdot$s/m can be achieved by controlling the external loads. Furthermore, a mechanical energy conversion efficiency between 0.71 and 0.84 is achieved, which is considerably higher than other mechanisms reported in the literature, such as ball screw, rack-and-pinion, and linear mechanisms.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations92
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ASME Transactions on MechatronicsSame topicVibration Control and Rheological FluidsFrench-language works237,207