MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109769907 · doi:10.5897/jmer12.009

Holistic design and software aided finite element analysis (FEA) of an All-Terrain Vehicle

2012· article· en· W2109769907 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amrit Om Nayak, G. Ramkumar, T. Manoj, MS Kannan, Dhanesh N. Manik, An, Sibi Chakravarthy

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical Engineering Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)RackEngineering design processProcess (computing)Automotive engineeringRollover (web design)EngineeringQuality function deploymentReliability (semiconductor)SoftwareFinite element methodComputer scienceSuspension (topology)TerrainKey (lock)Systems engineeringReliability engineeringPower (physics)Mechanical engineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have tried to design an All-Terrain Vehicle that meets international standards and is also cost effective at the same time. We have focused on every single system to improve the performance of each component. Our vehicle can navigate through almost all terrain, which ultimately is the objective behind the making of any All-Terrain Vehicle. We began the task of designing by conducting extensive research of each main component of the vehicle. We did not want to design certain areas such as the frame, and then make the rest to fit. We considered each component to be significant, and thereby designed the vehicle as a whole trying to optimize each component while constantly considering how other components would be affected. This forced us to think outside the box, research more thoroughly, and redesign components along the way in order to have a successful design. Combining this design methodology with the standard engineering design process enabled us to achieve a perfect match of aesthetics, performance, and ease of operation. Our current design is reliable and stable.  Extensive research helped us pinpoint the needs of the customers which helped us to refine our design further. We used the necessary parameters to create a Qualitative Function Diagram (QFD) to determine which parameters were the most critical. These key parameters ranging from most critical to least critical are safety, reliability, low cost, ease of operation and maintenance, and overall performance.   Key words: Power train, final-drive, rack and pinion, suspension, brakes, roll cage, double Wishbone suspension.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMechanical Engineering ResearchSame topicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations ResearchFrench-language works237,207