MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226401214 · doi:10.1109/tro.2022.3160018

High-Fidelity Dynamic Modeling and Simulation of Planetary Rovers Using Single-Input-Multi-Output Joints With Terrain Property Mapping

2022· article· en· W4226401214 on OpenAlexaff
Huaiguang Yang, Liang Ding, Haibo Gao, Wang Zheng-yin, Qingning Lan, Guangjun Liu, Zhen Liu, Weihua Li, Zongquan Deng

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesState Key Laboratory of Robotics and SystemNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTerrainTraverseDynamic simulationSimulationComputer scienceContact dynamicsFidelitySlippingEngineeringControl theory (sociology)Mechanical engineeringGeologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planetary rovers may traverse terrains with complex geometries and variable physical properties, but their mobility behaviors are complicated and difficult to simulate precisely. This article focuses on high-fidelity dynamic modeling and simulation for a type of rovers that incorporate single-input-multi-output joints to enhance terrain adaptability, which has been used on China's Tianwen-1 Mars rover. A novel multibody dynamic model and its solutions are derived first with consideration of single-input-multi-output joints. Then, a unified terramechanics model is proposed, considering variable terrain surfaces and covering rover's motion states of skidding, slipping, and steering, solved the problem of simulation instability caused by model switching between soft and hard terrains. As the contact areas of wheels with various terrains and resultant sinkage are dominant factors to ensure fidelity but difficult to determine, a new terrain modeling method for calculating contact area and wheel sinkage is developed using digital elevation map with physical properties. A simulation system is developed, integrating all the above models, and verified with physical experiments and commercial software. The relative simulation errors that have been achieved are less than 5.9% for bogie angles, 6.1% for drawbar pull, and 3.4% for slip ratios, demonstrating high fidelity 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations30
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on RoboticsSame topicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle DynamicsFrench-language works237,207