MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328872191 · doi:10.1504/ijvp.2016.075336

Analytical and experimental fatigue life assessment of automotive tensioner

2016· article· en· W2328872191 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Talimi, Jean W. Zu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Vehicle Performance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Failure Analysis and Simulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPowertrainVibration fatigueStructural engineeringAutomotive industryFinite element methodStress (linguistics)Automotive engineeringFatigue testingEngineeringComputer scienceTorquePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Front end accessory drive (FEAD) systems are subjected to a significant range of dynamic loads due to engine pulsations. FEAD components subjected to excessive dynamic loads, such as tensioners, are vulnerable to premature failure due to fatigue. It is challenging to analytically investigate the fatigue life for powertrain components given the parameters involved. In this paper, the fatigue life assessment of a tensioner is studied through three main steps, namely stress analysis, fatigue properties estimation, and fatigue life prediction. A series of finite element (FE) analyses are carried out to investigate stress distribution in the tensioner spindle and pinpoint the critical areas. In addition, the fatigue properties of the tensioner are estimated using the experimental data. Finally, tensioner fatigue life is predicted through strain-life approach. This paper presents an in-depth quantitative modelling approach to estimate the fatigue life of the automotive tensioner. The developed modelling approach is applicable for evaluating any cases involving powertrain mechanical components.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Vehicle PerformanceSame topicMechanical Failure Analysis and SimulationFrench-language works237,207