Experimental Validation of a Volumetric Planetary Rover Wheel/Soil Interaction Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the multibody simulation of planetary rover operations, a wheel–soil contact model is necessary to represent the forces and moments between the tire and the soft soil. A novel nonlinear contact modeling approach based on the properties of the hypervolume of interpenetration is validated in this paper. This normal contact force model is based on the Winkler foundation model with nonlinear spring properties. To fully define the proposed normal contact force model for this application, seven parameters are required. Besides the geometry parameters that can be easily measured, three soil parameters representing the hyperelastic and plastic properties of the soil have to be identified. Since it is very difficult to directly measure the latter set of soil parameters, they are identified by comparing computer simulations with experimental results of drawbar pull tests performed under different slip conditions on the Juno rover of the Canadian Space Agency (CSA). A multibody dynamics model of the Juno rover including the new wheel/soil interaction model was developed and simulated in maplesim. To identify the wheel/soil contact model parameters, the cost function of the model residuals of the kinematic data is minimized. The volumetric contact model is then tested by using the identified contact model parameters in a forward dynamics simulation of the rover on an irregular three-dimensional terrain and compared against experiments.
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 | 0.000 | 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".