MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fault Diagnostics and Prognostics for Vehicle Springs and Stablizer Bar

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

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

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

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 head0.018
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