Design Space Exploration of a Continuous Rubber Track System via Surrogate Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous rubber track systems for heavy applications are typically designed using multiple iterations of full-scale physical prototypes. This costly and time-consuming approach limits the possibility of exploring the design space and understanding how the design space of that kind of system is governed. A multibody dynamic simulation has recently been developed, but its complexity (due to the number of model’s inputs) makes it difficult to understand and too expensive to be used with multi-objective optimization algorithms (approximately 3 h on a desktop computer). This article aims to propose a first design space exploration of continuous rubber track systems via multi-objective optimization methods. Using an existing expensive multibody dynamic model as original function, surrogate models (artificial neural networks) have been trained to predict the simulation responses. These artificial neural networks are then used to explore the design space efficiently by using optimization algorithms. Sensitivity studies and multi-objective optimization were carried out on surrogate models to identify high-impact design parameters and potential improvements ranging from 2.24% to 17.2% compared to the current design of reference (CTS halftrack system) on wheel load, track pinch, and maximum required torque to cross a bump.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".