MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791042499 · doi:10.21608/asat.2013.22236

Multi-Wheeled Combat Vehicle Tire Modeling on Rigid and Soft Terrain

2013· article· en· W2791042499 on OpenAlexaff
H. Ragheb, Moustafa El–Gindy, Hossam A. Kishawy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Aerospace Sciences and Aviation Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxleTerrainTorqueAutomotive engineeringDeflection (physics)DrivetrainVehicle dynamicsFinite element methodSlip angleEngineeringYawRigid bodyComputer scienceStructural engineeringSteering wheel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-wheeled off-road vehicles performance depends not only on the total engine power but also on its distribution among the drive axles/wheels. In turn, this distribution is largely regulated by the drivetrain layout and its torque distribution which is constrained by the interaction between the wheels and the terrain (rigid or soft soil). In this paper three-dimensional, non-linear Finite Element Analysis (FEA) off-road tire models on rigid and soft terrain were developed using PAM-CRASH and the general trends of vertical load-deflection, cornering characteristics and aligning moment on rigid terrains are compared with published measured data of a similar tire for validation purposes. Non-linear tire look-up tables for rigid and soft terrain were developed based on FEA off-road tire simulation results and used for vehicle simulation using the multi-body dynamics code TruckSim. The predictions of vehicle handling characteristics and transient response during lane change test on rigid road at different vehicle speeds were compared with simulation results for same vehicle configuration using real experimental tire data. Simulation results are compared on the basis of vehicle steering, yaw rates and accelerations. The published US Army validation criteria has been used to validate simulation results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Aerospace Sciences and Aviation TechnologySame topicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle DynamicsFrench-language works237,207