Development of a Lightweight Electric Light Duty Truck Structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finding room to package enough energy at today’s battery energy densities, while preserving performance and configuration requirements is a common problem for electric vehicles. This issue was recently addressed at General Motors by a small team utilizing agile concept development methods, constitutive material model development, and performance simulation tools to create a structural strategy for a family of unique electric light duty trucks. The desire to create a flexible architecture rather than a single vehicle, coupled with an underbody dominant, and rectilinear structural design space precluded any great topological novelty, so a basic principles approach was taken instead. A concept was devised whereby conventional truck frame rails were abandoned in favor of a series of three connected box-like structures along the length of the vehicle. For this to work effectively however, stable shear panels were required as a basic building block. Aluminum Foam Sandwich panels were adopted for this purpose which required a separate material characterization program using small specimens in a largely dynamic testing schedule. The knowledge from this step was scaled and applied to the virtual development of the concept. Coupled with parametric finite element mesh generation tools, and modified models of vehicles in similar segments, a proof of concept was generated that could be used as the basis for downstream vehicle development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".