MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fault Diagnostics and Prognostics for Vehicle Springs and Stablizer Bar

2020· article· en· W3102209108 on OpenAlexaff
Xinyu Du, Lichao Mai, H. Mohseni Sadjadi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Conference of the PHM Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsGeneral Motors (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrognosticsStabilizer (aeronautics)Robustness (evolution)Bar (unit)BushingEngineeringDowntimeAutomotive engineeringSpring (device)Fault detection and isolationAccelerationFault (geology)Computer scienceStructural engineeringReliability engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vehicle springs and stabilizer bar are critical suspension components impacting vehicle riding and handling experience. Diagnostics and prognostics of springs and stabilizer bar can improve customer perceived quality, reduce repair cost and increase up-time for fleet vehicles. It’s even more important for autonomous vehicles, since there is no human driver to sense fault symptoms. Currently, there is no production solution to automatically diagnose and prognose spring and stabilizer bar failures, and most research work is suffered by various noise factors. In this work, a novel solution based on static ramp test is proposed to isolate and localize spring and stabilizer bar faults. With limited number of longitudinal and lateral acceleration measurements, the solution can quickly and effectively isolate faulty spring, disconnected stabilizer bar, loose bushing and loose end link. The validation results from a MY17 Bolt EV demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed solution.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Conference of the PHM SocietySame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207