MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2245279581 · doi:10.5151/engpro-simea-pap60

CHALLENGES AND BEST PRACTICES DURING THE FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FORMODAL INVESTIGATIONOF DRIVETRAIN COMPONENTS

2014· article· en· W2245279581 on OpenAlexaff
Thales Sardinha Garcia Souza, Felipe Moura Fontes Novo, Mauro Moraes de Souza, Juliano Savoy

Bibliographic record

VenueBlucher Engineering Proceedings · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Failure Analysis and Simulation
Canadian institutionsWeyerhauser (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPowertrainAutomotive engineeringFinite element methodDrivetrainAutomotive industryEngineeringTurbochargerCamshaftVibrationTorqueNoise, vibration, and harshnessTurbopropEngine powerPower (physics)Mechanical engineeringStructural engineeringTurbine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engine downsizing is the use of a smaller engine in a vehicle that provides the power of a larger one. It is the result of car manufacturers attempting to provide more efficient vehicles by adding modern technologies, for instance, turbochargers, direct injection and variable camshaft. The smaller engine is also lighter and provides torque and power with similar performance to a much larger engine. However, the downsizing technique may lead to undesirable vibration effects on the driveline, such as structural damaging, vibration fatigue failure and extra noise. All these issues are related to natural frequencies investigation and they are often determined through the finite element method together with experimental tests during the product development phase. This work presents the finite element method limitation for natural frequencies determination of automotive components and a possible solution for this issue.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlucher Engineering ProceedingsSame topicMechanical Failure Analysis and SimulationFrench-language works237,207