Roll- and pitch-plane-coupled hydro-pneumatic suspension. Part 2: dynamic response analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the first part of this study, the potential performance benefits of fluidically coupled passive suspensions were demonstrated through analyses of suspension properties, design flexibility and feasibility. In this second part of the study, the dynamic responses of a vehicle equipped with different configurations of fluidically coupled hydro-pneumatic suspension systems are investigated for more comprehensive assessments of the coupled suspension concepts. A generalised 14 degree-of-freedom nonlinear vehicle model is developed and validated to evaluate vehicle ride and handling dynamic responses and suspension anti-roll and anti-pitch characteristics under various road excitations and steering/braking manoeuvres. The dynamic responses of the vehicle model with the coupled suspension are compared with those of the unconnected suspensions to demonstrate the performance potential of the fluidic couplings. The dynamic responses together with the suspension properties suggest that the full-vehicle-coupled hydro-pneumatic suspension could offer considerable potential in realising enhanced ride and handling performance, as well as improved anti-roll and anti-pitch properties in a very flexible and energy-saving manner.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".