MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990108246 · doi:10.1007/s42154-019-00079-9

Comprehensive Analysis and Optimization of Dynamic Vibration-Absorbing Structures for Electric Vehicles Driven by In-Wheel Motors

2019· article· en· W2990108246 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAutomotive Innovation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration Control and Rheological Fluids
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersYoung Scientists FundPostdoctoral Research Foundation of China
KeywordsSuspension (topology)VibrationParticle swarm optimizationControl theory (sociology)Coupling (piping)Active suspensionAutomotive engineeringSensitivity (control systems)EngineeringElectric motorComputer scienceControl engineeringActuatorControl (management)Mechanical engineeringElectronic engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Distributed-drive electric vehicles (EVs) replace internal combustion engine with multiple motors, and the novel configuration results in new dynamic-related issues. This paper studies the coupling effects between the parameters and responses of dynamic vibration-absorbing structures (DVAS) for EVs driven by in-wheel motors (IWM). Firstly, a DVAS-based quarter suspension model is developed for distributed-drive EVs, from which nine parameters and five responses are selected for the coupling effect analysis. A two-stage global sensitivity analysis is then utilized to investigate the effect of each parameter on the responses. The control of the system is then converted into a multiobjective optimization problem with the defined system parameters being the optimization variables, and three dynamic limitations regarding both motor and suspension subsystems are taken as the constraints. A particle swarm optimization approach is then used to either improve ride comfort or mitigate IWM vibration, and two optimized parameter sets for these two objects are provided at last. Simulation results provide in-depth conclusions for the coupling effects between parameters and responses, as well as a guideline on how to design system parameters for contradictory objectives. It can be concluded that either passenger comfort or motor lifespan can be reduced up to 36% and 15% by properly changing the IWM suspension system parameters.

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.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.213 · 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