Combined Variation Modeling of Structural and Tuning Components for Vehicle Performance Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the vehicle development process, dimensional variation simulation modeling has been applied extensively to estimate the effects of build variation on the final product. Traditional variation simulation methods analyze the tolerance inputs of structural components, but do not account for any compliance effects due to stiffness variation in tuning components, such as bushings, springs, isolators, etc., since both product and process variation are simulated based on rigid-body assumptions. Vehicle performance objectives such as ride and handling (R&H) often involve these compliance metrics. The objective of this paper is to present a method to concurrently simulate the tolerance from the structural parts as well as the variability of compliance from the tuning components through an integration package. The combination of these two highly influential effects will allow for a more accurate prediction and assessment of vehicle performance. Vehicle alignment modeling is used as the case study in this paper to demonstrate this developed process because the variability of alignment is a key contributor that impacts handling performance. The benefit of coupling tolerance analysis and system compliance analysis is the ability to ultimately assess static and dynamic effects of component variability on the range of ride and handling performance experienced by the customer.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".