MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055768353 · doi:10.5267/j.esm.2015.2.003

Finite element analysis and optimization of a mono parabolic leaf spring using CAE software

2015· article· en· W2055768353 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Krishan Kumar, Manjeet Aggarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Solid Mechanics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodSpring (device)SoftwareLeaf springStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringMathematicsEngineering drawingProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parabolic leaf spring is one of the vital components in vehicle suspension system, and it is commonly used in heavy vehicles. It needs to have an excellent static load bearing capacity and fatigue life too. The purpose of this work is to make computer aided engineering (CAE) analysis of mono parabolic leaf spring and to see the effect of change of material in the optimized leaf. A mono steel leaf spring and a mono leaf spring made of composite material have been selected for this comparative analysis. The material of the mono steel leaf spring is EN45A and Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) as composite material which is having high strength to weight ratio. The mono leaf spring model is having one full length leave with eyes at both ends, two pins in each eye end and a rubber pad on the upper face of leave center. The CAD modelling of parabolic leaf spring has been done in CATIA and for analysis the model is imported in ANSYS workbench. It was shown that the use of composite material instead of steel resulted into large deflection, small variation in stresses and also a large amount of weight reduction.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Solid MechanicsSame topicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations ResearchFrench-language works237,207