MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098062285 · doi:10.1177/0954407014561279

Topology, size and shape optimization of an automotive cross car beam

2014· article· en· W2098062285 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTopology Optimization in Engineering
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomotive industryDesign for manufacturabilityTopology optimizationAutomotive engineeringSteering linkageBeam (structure)Finite element methodEngineeringBeam steeringSteering wheelMechanical engineeringTopology (electrical circuits)Computer scienceTorque steeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An automotive cross car beam supports instrument panels including the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning system, the knee airbags, the steering-column and steering-wheel system and the central console. Avoiding resonant frequencies and improving driving comfort are major performance requirements in the design of a cross car beam. Because of the nature of mass production in the automotive industry, the consideration of manufacturability is important, and the current practice in the industry does grant detailed information on the steering-column and steering-wheel system to the cross car beam designer. The objective of this paper is to perform a complete topology, size and shape optimization of a cross car beam by using a lightweight material, by considering two practical manufacturing processes (extrusion and casting) and by assuming a realistic situation where only limited information on the steering-column and steering-wheel system is available to the cross car beam designer. First, a simplified finite element model of the steering-column and steering-wheel system was developed, and it was calibrated using optimization such that the important behaviour of the simplified finite element model agrees with that of the real steering-column and steering-wheel system. Topology optimization was performed to determine the optimal material distribution for the parts that connect the steering-column and steering-wheel system and the cross car beam. Then a geometry reinterpretation of the favourable topology result was performed to address the concerns from the viewpoints of the cost and the manufacturability. A sensitivity study was conducted subsequently to determine the size optimization design variables with significant effects on the frequency performance. Finally, size and shape optimization were performed together to optimize further the details of the cross car beam structure. The weight of the optimal aluminium design was reduced by nearly 40% compared with the steel design while the important performance requirements are met.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.205 · 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