## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Simulation Results**} & & \\ \cline{3-10}  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**S-Turn**} & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**8’ Slope**} & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Field Test**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Field Test**} \\  & & **Clayey Soil** & **Dry Sand** & **Upland** & **Sandy Loam** & **Clayey Soil** & **Dry Sand** & **Upland** & **(Line 1)** & **Field Test** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Single \\ frame \\ \end{tabular} } & \(\chi\)-Range (mm) & \(-\)2.950\(-\)2.080 & \(-\)0.970\(-\)1.560 & \(-\)17.05\(-\)18.90 & \(-\)0.060\(-\)0.064 & \(-\)0.044\(-\)0.062 & \(-\)0.038\(-\)0.066 & \(-\)12.425\(-\)16.695 & \(-\)52.216\(-\)38.463 \\ \cline{2-10}  & \(\chi\)-Range (mm) & \(-\)0.010\(-\)0.390 & \(-\)0.010\(-\)0.270 & \(-\)0.010\(-\)4.620 & \(-\)0.006\(-\)0.007 & \(-\)0.006\(-\)0.007 & \(-\)0.006\(-\)0.007 & \(-\)16.749\(-\)0.695 & \(-\)15.217\(-\)13.781 \\ \cline{2-10}  & \(\chi\)-Range (mm) & \(-\)0.750\(-\)0.120 & \(-\)0.150\(-\)0.270 & \(-\)2.320\(-\)0.030 & \(-\)1.404\(-\)0.153 & \(-\)1.573\(-\)0.362 & \(-\)1.511\(-\)0.491 & - & - \\ \cline{2-10}  & \(\chi\)-Range (mm) & \(-\)0.328\(-\)0.349 & \(-\)0.415\(-\)0.468 & \(-\)0.723\(-\)0.782 & \(-\)0.113\(-\)0.196 & \(-\)0.072\(-\)0.229 & \(-\)0.064\(-\)0.089 & \(-\)2.328\(-\)4.891 & \(-\)4.56\(-\)2.971 \\ \cline{2-10}  & \(\chi\)-Range (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-\)0.328\(-\)0.849 & \(-\)0.195\(-\)2.243 & \(-\)0.160\(-\)1.384 & \(-\)10.883\(-\)11.77 & \(-\)11.188\(-\)15.219 & \(-\)10.835\(-\)12.756 & \(-\)3.561\(-\)2.749 & \(-\)3.756\(-\)1.76 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Fully bee frames \\ \end{tabular} } & \(\mathrm{
\begin{tabular}{c}\text{Roll range}\\ \text{(${}^{\circ}$)}\end{tabular}}\) & \(-\)0.095\(-\)0.132 & \(-\)0.474\(-\)0.099 & \(-\)0.053\(-\)0.108 & \(-\)0.147\(-\)0.261 & - & \(-\)0.132\(-\)0.164 & \(-\)1.362\(-\)3.419 & \(-\)3.594\(-\)7.388 \\ \cline{2-10}  & \(\chi\)-Range (\({}^{\circ}\)) & \(-\)0.200\(-\)2.073 & \(-\)0.200\(-\)6.085 & \(-\)0.200\(-\)3.935 & \(-\)10.207\(-\)13.314 & - & \(-\)10.422\(-\)16.758 & \(-\)4.332\(-\)0.002 & \(-\)3.011\(-\)8.888 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Summary of the simulation and field test results. the route. This result is similar to the research of [PERSON] et al. [29], which found that it was more challenging to maneuver tracked vehicles on soft ground than on the hard ground. Because the stiffness and elasticity coefficients of the contact between the loading box and the bee frame could not be measured precisely during the simulation analysis, the stiffness coefficient of the contact between the loading box and the bee frame was selected as an approximate iron-wood contact in the simulation analysis, and the elasticity coefficient was selected using an empirical formula as one-thousandth of the stiffness coefficient. For this reason, the simulation analysis results may not accurately describe the jitter phenomenon between the bee frame and the vehicle during operation. The ground state did not change in the simulation analysis even after several tests, so further testing in the actual environment is needed. The dry sand road surface was less stable in the analysis, and the vehicle could not pass through the 8\({}^{\circ}\) upslope and downslope. Therefore, in the subsequent design, the structure of the transporter must be modified to lower the center of gravity of the vehicle or modify the track section so that it can adapt to various road surfaces and operating conditions.