MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015640265 · doi:10.5545/sv-jme.2009.074

Fatigue Failure Study of the Lower Suspension Vehicle Arm Using a Multiaxial Criterion of the Strain Energy Density

2011· article· en· W2015640265 on OpenAlexaff
Abdelhamid Saoudi, Mohamed Bouazara, Daniel Marceau

Bibliographic record

VenueStrojniški vestnik – Journal of Mechanical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuspension (topology)Strain energy density functionStructural engineeringStrain (injury)Strain energyMaterials scienceEnergy densityComposite materialMathematicsEngineeringPhysical therapyFinite element methodMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to evaluate the potential of light alloy mechanical part use in automobile industry by studying their fatigue life using various parameters such as effect of suspension dynamic, excitation type, geometry and mechanical part weight. The studied part is the lower suspension arm made from 7075-T6 aluminium alloy. The strain density energy approach enables us to compare two same order tensor: the multiaxial and uniaxial cases. The random displacement excitation is obtained analytically from the power spectral density PSD. The force excitation is obtained by a simple normalisation of spectrum displacement. To avoid the use of Newton-Raphson method during the partial fatigue life calculation step in all mesh elements, a Matlab interface to identify the critical elements is developed. The strain energy density (SENER) signal of the critical element is corrected to remove anomalies by WAFO Matlab interface algorithm. Rainflow cycles are extracted using Markov formulation in order to calculate the number of signal repetitions to failure, which is calculated from Miner law.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.219
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrojniški vestnik – Journal of Mechanical EngineeringSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207