Evaluation of the effects of design features on tracked vehicle mobility using an advanced computer simulation model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On soft terrain, such as deep snow, track sinkage often exceeds vehicle ground clearance and the vehicle belly comes into contact with the terrain surface. This paper describes the results of a detailed investigation into the effects of design features, particularly the combined effects of initial track tension (i.e., the tension in the track system when the vehicle is stationary on a level, hard surface) and vehicle belly attitude (nose-up or nose-down), on soft ground mobility of tracked vehicles. The investigation was carried out using the latest version of an advanced computer simulation model, known as NTVPM, developed under the auspices of Vehicle Systems Development Corporation. The results show that the initial track tension has a significant effect on soft ground mobility, particularly when track sinkage is greater than vehicle ground clearance. When the vehicle belly is in contact with terrain surface, its attitude also has a notable effect on vehicle performance at low initial track tensions. However, its effect on mobility decreases with the increase in initial track tension. It is demonstrated that NTVPM is a useful and effective tool for design and performance evaluation of tracked vehicles from a traction perspective.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".