MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416631530 · doi:10.1115/1.4070476

Modeling and Validation of Compressed Snow–Tire Interactions for Traction Assessment Under Controlled Slip Conditions

2025· article· en· W4416631530 on OpenAlexaff
Yogesh Surkutwar, Corina Sandu, Eric Pierce, Costin D. Untaroiu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSmiths Detection (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraction (geology)Contact patchFinite element methodSlip (aerodynamics)Test dataSnowTest benchBogie

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Snow traction is an important performance parameter for tire manufacturers, and it is evaluated using a standardized test (ASTM F1805-20). In this test, the tire driving traction on compressed snow is recorded under controlled conditions. However, conducting multiple tests is challenging due to the limited availability of proving grounds and the difficulty of maintaining consistent test conditions. Additionally, prototyping and testing are costly. To address these limitations, this paper investigates the modeling and prediction of snow–tire interaction to estimate the traction coefficient of standard reference test tire (SRTT) 225/60R16 at different slip ratios, and it is validated against in situ test data. The SRTT tire is modeled using finite element analysis (FEA) and validated under static loading conditions. The validation considers radial deflection, footprint area, and contact pressure at different inflation pressures against experimental data. Compacted snow is modeled using Drucker–Prager cap (DPC) plasticity material model and a hybrid smoothed particle hydrodynamics-finite element method (SPH-FEM) approach. The DPC model captures the material behavior of compacted snow accurately, while the hybrid SPH-FEM approach is computationally efficient. The study evaluates the traction performance of the SRTT tire on compacted snow for different slip ratios and compares the results with in situ test data. Furthermore, the impact of sipes on traction performance is analyzed by comparing a SRTT tire model with a blank-rib tire model under identical slip conditions. The findings contribute to enhancing traction modeling methodologies for virtual validation of winter tires.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational and Nonlinear DynamicsSame topicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle DynamicsFrench-language works237,207