Substantiating the optimal shape of a bimetal flywheel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study’s object is the flywheel as an energy storage device. The task addressed is to devise a sequential approach to flywheel shape optimization. The analytical basis of flywheel shape optimization has been reconstructed to reveal the source of contradictory results. It was found that the product of radius and angular velocity of rotation is a constant that depends on material properties for the ring-shaped disk flywheel. It becomes somewhat more complicated for other flywheel shapes. It is the reason for the contradictions in the flywheel shape optimization results reported by researchers. Comparative calculations for several flywheel shapes have been performed using the finite element method. The results confirmed that bringing material closer to the axis of rotation, including Laval disk shape, does not give any advantages. Material choice has an essential advantage in comparison with shape optimization. The flywheel shape has to be optimized together with the material. A ring-shaped disk flywheel is a good starting point for flywheel shape optimization. The results are attributed to the nature of the flywheel material behavior under the action of inertia forces. A novel approach to combining different materials in flywheel construction has been proposed. One material (high-strength steel) was used for the flywheel ring. Another material with a lower elastic modulus (high-strength aluminum alloy) was used for elements connecting the ring with the shaft. The bimetal flywheel has a mass three times less than the base variant, with 24.6% underload for steel parts and 17.3% underload for aluminum parts. The findings reported here could be practically implemented in the design and manufacturing of flywheel energy storage systems with increased specific energy for use in vehicles and stationary power units
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".