MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159076154 · doi:10.18280/mmep.080210

Balancing and Simulation of a Double Crank-Rocker Engine Model for Optimum Reduction of Shaking Forces and Shaking Moments

2021· article· en· W3159076154 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anwr Albaghdadi, Masri B. Baharom, Shaharin A. Sualiman

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrankPiston (optics)TorqueReduction (mathematics)Moment (physics)Process (computing)Mechanism (biology)Fictitious forceSoftwareVibrationEngineeringControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceAutomotive engineeringMechanical engineeringMathematicsMechanicsPhysicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a new configuration of Crank-Rocker (CR) model has been proposed by duplicating its mechanism. The method has been implemented to overcome vibration problem on a single-piston Crank-Rocker engine caused by system unbalance. The new method suggests combining conventional method of adding counterweights to reduce shaking forces and eliminating the inertial moments on system by implementing the new layout. A dynamic study of the new model is presented, then the objective function is derived and implemented to perform the optimization process. Related design variables and system constraints are introduced to determine attached counterweights optimized characteristics. For results validation, the simulation, dynamic analysis, and optimization process were conducted using ADAMS VIEW® software. The output results were presented and discussed to verify the validity of the suggested method. It was noticed that the method was very effective and has managed to reduce the total shaking forces by about 91%, shaking moment by about 66%; and the driving torque by 27%.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations ResearchFrench-language works237,207