Analytical and experimental analysis of axial force generated by a drive shaft system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The drive shaft system with a tripod joint is known to cause lateral vibration in a vehicle due to the axial force generated by various contact pairs of the tripod joint. The magnitude of the generated axial force, however, is related to various operating factors of the drive shaft system in a complex manner. The generated axial force due to a drive shaft system with a tripod joint and a ball joint was experimentally characterized considering ranges of operational factors, namely, the input toque, the shaft rotational speed, the articulation angle, and the friction. The data were analyzed to establish an understanding of the operational factors on the generated axial force. Owing to the observed significant effects of all the factors, a multibody dynamic model of the drive shaft system was formulated for predicting generated axial force under different operating conditions. The model integrated the roller–track contact model and the velocity-based friction model. Based on a quasi-static finite element model, a new methodology was proposed for identifying the roller–track contact model parameters, namely, the contact stiffness and force index. To further enhance the calculation accuracy of the multibody dynamic model, a new methodology for identifying the friction model parameters and the force index was proposed by using the measured data. The validity of the model was demonstrated by comparing the model-predicted and measured magnitudes of generated axial force for the ranges of operating factors considered. The results showed that the generated axial force of the drive shaft system can be calculated more accurately and effectively by using the identified friction and contact parameters in the paper.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".