MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Combining virtual simulation and physical vehicle test data to optimize durability testing

2002· article· en· W2114477178 on OpenAlexaff
William Ferry, Peter Frise, Graham Andrews, M. A. Malik

Bibliographic record

VenueFatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Dynamics and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPayload (computing)SimulationDurabilitySoftwareOperabilityPhysical testSuspension (topology)Process (computing)EngineeringFidelityVehicle dynamicsComputer scienceSimulation softwareMultibody systemMerge (version control)Automotive engineeringReliability engineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper describes an ongoing project to model a vehicle on a computer with a multibody dynamics simulation software package and to merge that work with physical proving ground and laboratory tests in order to shorten vehicle development time. The intention is to mirror as closely as possible the behaviour of a physical vehicle in order to assist in determining its durability characteristics under varying road conditions. This modelling work is important because, if done with sufficient fidelity, it can be used in order to assess vehicle responses by using different suspension components or payloads. Also, potential issues associated with vehicle structure, suspension components or payload positioning can be observed on a computer prior to performing physical tests. The process has the potential to reduce vehicle development cost and time. The virtual dynamic vehicle model has been created by using Automatic dynamic analysis of mechanical systems (ADAMS) software package. The calculated outputs from the model are being compared to force and displacement data collected from actual vehicle on‐road testing or a servo‐hydraulic road test simulator (RTS). The virtual model can be adjusted until the calculated responses are in close agreement with those of the physical vehicle, thus linking the virtual and real‐world results.

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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations23
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & StructuresSame topicVehicle Dynamics and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207