MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919485843 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2018-0204

Failure mode investigation and re-design of heavy-duty commercial vehicle bogie bracket

2019· article· en· W2919485843 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
P. Thangapazham, L.A. Kumaraswamidhas, D. Muruganandam

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBogieBracketStructural engineeringChassisSuspension (topology)AxleEngineeringShock absorberAutomotive engineeringStrain gaugeHeavy dutyStress (linguistics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heavy-duty commercial vehicles play a significant role in commodity logistics. For each of these vehicles, the suspension is the most essential system to support the load and road shock. Bogie type suspension system is employed to safeguard the vehicle from road shock. The bogie bracket is a juncture between the chassis and the axle in the suspension system. The bogie bracket has been identified as a critical part of the suspension system. In the present study, bogie bracket base design and modelling was performed using computer-aided engineering (CAE). The strength of the bogie was tested to identify weaker sections. Design modifications were performed to improve the strength on identified critical sections through reinforcement techniques. A road load data acquisition (RLDA) test was conducted under different road conditions to validate CAE results. Five different rough-road road surfaces were chosen for RLDA testing. Using strain gauges, strain data were acquired during the test. Corresponding stress values were obtained and maximum stress was found in all driving conditions. For the base design bogie bracket, under RLDA test, crack initiation and crack propagation were identified under vertical loads. A reinforced bogie bracket was designed and found to have a higher strength and longer expected life than that of the base design.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207