Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper presents a new Integrated Framework for AI predictive Maintenance (AMIFAIM—Andrei Muresan Integrated Framework for AI predictive Maintenance), which allows online monitoring of the main components’ fatigue life. A Random Forest regressor, trained on 15,000 synthetic loading scenarios generated by physics-based superposition of seven finite element load cases, serves as a near-real-time surrogate for structural simulation. The framework is demonstrated on a lower control arm made from S420MC steel (EN 10149-2) in a Dacia Logan front suspension. The trained model predicts Von Mises stress from six strain-gauge channels with R2 = 0.9943, MAE = 28.76 MPa, and RMSE = 37.58 MPa on unseen test data, while providing uncertainty estimates per prediction from the variance in the ensemble. Leave-One-Load-Case-Out validation confirms generalisation to unseen load combinations (mean R2 = 0.950). Cumulative fatigue damage is tracked in real time using the Palmgren–Miner rule with an S-N curve calibrated for hot-spot stress conditions. Simulated drive scenarios confirm that the system correctly distinguishes between benign service (near-zero fatigue damage under highway loading) and abusive conditions (5–8% life consumption in 30 s under repeated impact loading), consistent with the expected behaviour of a properly designed suspension link. The entire pipeline—data augmentation, training, prediction, fatigue tracking, and visualisation—is driven by a single configuration file. Applying it to a new component requires only finite element results and material properties; no software changes are needed. The framework is designed to be reconfigured for components for which representative FEA load cases and material-fatigue inputs are available. The current implementation operates on FEA-derived virtual sensor data, with the architecture designed for direct replacement by physical strain-gauge hardware in future experimental validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Muresan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: