MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3149923476 · doi:10.1177/09544070211007977

A comparative study of static and dynamic properties of honeycomb non-pneumatic wheels and a pneumatic wheel

2021· article· en· W3149923476 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

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStiffnessSlip angleDeflection (physics)Structural engineeringSlip (aerodynamics)Finite element methodMaterials sciencePlanarEngineeringPhysicsComputer scienceClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three-dimensional finite element (FE) models of the honeycomb NPWs with three different spokes’ configurations, realized by varying the cell angle, were formulated. The validity of the proposed NPW FE models was demonstrated by comparing the predicted wheel responses with the reported data. A FE model of the pneumatic wheel of identical size was also formulated and verified on the basis of the measured vertical force-deflection and cornering properties. The verified NPW models were subsequently employed to study their feasibility through comparisons of in-plane as well as out-of-plane properties with those of the pneumatic wheel. The influences of the cell angle and normal wheel load on the static and dynamic properties of the NPWs were also investigated. The results showed load-dependent longitudinal stiffness of the wheel due to strong coupling between radial and longitudinal deformations of the honeycomb spokes. The lateral stiffness, however, was observed to be load-independent due to negligible coupling between radial and lateral deformations of the spokes. The spokes of the honeycomb NPWs could thus be easily tuned to achieve vertical and longitudinal stiffness comparable to those of the reference pneumatic wheel. The lateral and cornering stiffness of the NPWs with the planar spokes, however, were substantially higher, irrespective of the spokes’ configuration considered. The significantly higher cornering stiffness resulted in rapid saturation of the cornering force of the NPWs at side-slip angles about 1.1°, which is likely to cause lateral sliding of the wheels and potential loss of directional control under higher side slip conditions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.219 · 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