Bibliographic record
Abstract
General–purpose programs are gaining popularity in several application such as machine dynamics, robotics and vehicle dynamics. These programs include mechanism programs such as IMP, DADS, ADAMS and DRAM, and simulation languages such as ACSL and CSMP. Two important drawbacks of many of these are that the problem formulation can be very tedious and that the user is required to know specialised theory and syntax. We present two interactive graphics–based general–purpose programs for the modelling, analysis and design of lumped parameter mechanical and hydromechanical systems. The programs CAMSYD and CANVAS receive model representation in terms of schematic diagrams, derive system equations symbolically and give graphical output of system response. The majority of vehicle models used in ride comfort studies can be represented as lumped–parameter mechanical systems of rigid bodies interconnected by springs, dampers and revolute joints. The bodies do not form closed kinematic chains and they undergo only small angular motions. The suspensions are represented by two–port force–generators. These forces can be passive or active, linear or non–linear. For this class of multibody systems, we present a self–formulating program called CAMSYD. The second program, CANVAS, is used to model and analyse hydromechanical systems at the component level. The suspension units which are modelled as black–box force–generators in CAMSYD can now be conceived of as comprising hydraulic actuators, accumulators, feedback controllers, etc. CANVAS uses a bond graph approach to physical system modelling so that components from different energy domains can coexist. However, the user is not required to know about bond graphs since the model is built on the computer screen using icons representing various physical components. The use of the two programs is demonstrated by applying them to some typical vehicle dynamics problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.005 |
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".