MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288709469 · doi:10.1177/09544070221113895

Integrated topology and packaging optimization for conceptual-level electric vehicle chassis design via the component-existence method

2022· article· en· W4288709469 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Roper, Il Yong Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTopology Optimization in Engineering
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChassisComponent (thermodynamics)PowertrainTopology optimizationTopology (electrical circuits)Electric vehicleScalabilityComputer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)EngineeringMechanical engineeringAutomotive engineeringFinite element methodElectrical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional vehicle architectures are undergoing significant transformation as automakers embrace electrification. With increased emphasis on lightweight structures design and efficient packaging of new electric powertrains, numerical tools are now essential to help solve these complex material and component distribution problems. To address these challenges, methods for integrated topology and packaging optimization (iTOPO) have been developed to couple these problem statements and form dynamic component-structure interactions. In this work, a component-existence approach is used for conducting iTOPO of self-contained electric vehicle chassis structures to demonstrate the benefits and scalability of this emerging methodology. Examples focus on incorporating simplified components for battery modules and electric motors within the underlying vehicle structure, integrating up to 43 components simultaneously in a 3D design domain. Here, discussion highlights the development of unique integrated layouts, methodology tunability, and practical insights of the formed component-structure interactions. iTOPO results are also compared to equivalent topology-only problems and show less than a 10% difference in compliance despite the addition of various complex integration requirements (e.g. multiple geometries, packaging symmetry).

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile EngineeringSame topicTopology Optimization in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207