0
Research Papers

Physics-Based Deformable Tire–Soil Interaction Model for Off-Road Mobility Simulation and Experimental Validation

[+] Author and Article Information
Hiroki Yamashita

Department of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering,
The University of Iowa,
2312 Seamans Center,
Iowa City, IA 52242

Paramsothy Jayakumar

US Army TARDEC,
6501 E. 11 Mile Road,
Warren, MI 48397-5000

Mustafa Alsaleh

Caterpillar, Inc.,
Product Development & Global Technology,
14009 Old Galena Road,
Mossville, IL 61552

Hiroyuki Sugiyama

Department of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering,
The University of Iowa,
2416C Seamans Center,
Iowa City, IA 52242
e-mail: hiroyuki-sugiyama@uiowa.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL AND NONLINEAR DYNAMICS. Manuscript received April 1, 2017; final manuscript received September 6, 2017; published online November 1, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Corina Sandu.This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

J. Comput. Nonlinear Dynam 13(2), 021002 (Nov 01, 2017) (15 pages) Paper No: CND-17-1144; doi: 10.1115/1.4037994 History: Received April 01, 2017; Revised September 06, 2017

A physics-based deformable tire–soil interaction simulation capability that can be fully integrated into the monolithic multibody dynamics computer algorithm is developed by extending a deformable tire model based on the flexible multibody dynamics approach to off-road mobility simulations with a moving soil patch technique and it is validated against test data. A locking-free nine-node brick element is developed for modeling large plastic soil deformation using the multiplicative finite strain plasticity theory along with the capped Drucker–Prager failure criterion. To identify soil parameters including cohesion and friction angle, the triaxial compression test is carried out, and the soil model developed is validated against the test data. In addition to the component level validation for the tire and soil models, the tire–soil interaction simulation capability developed in this study is validated against the soil bin mobility test results. The tire forces and rolling resistance coefficients predicted by the simulation model agree well with the test results. It is shown that effect of the wheel loads and tire inflation pressures is well captured in the simulation model. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that the moving soil patch technique, with which soil behavior only in the vicinity of the rolling tire is solved to reduce the soil model dimensionality, leads to a significant reduction in computational time, thereby enabling use of the high-fidelity physics-based tire–soil interaction model in the large-scale off-road mobility simulation.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Bekker, M. G. , 1969, Introduction to Terrain-Vehicle Systems, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Wong, J. Y. , 2008, Theory of Ground Vehicle, 4th ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Contreras, U. , Li, G. , Foster, C. D. , Shabana, A. A. , Jayakumar, P. , and Letherwood, M. D. , 2013, “ Soil Models and Vehicle System Dynamics,” ASME Appl. Mech. Rev., 65(4), p. 040802. [CrossRef]
Shoop, S. A. , 2001, “ Finite Element Modeling of Tire-Terrain Interaction,” Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, Report No. ERDC/CRREL TR-01-16. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a398076.pdf
Fervers, C. W. , 2004, “ Improved FEM Simulation Model for Tire–Soil Interaction,” J. Terramechanics, 41(2–3), pp. 87–100. [CrossRef]
Xia, K. , 2011, “ Finite Element Modeling of Tire/Terrain Interaction: Application to Predicting Soil Compaction and Tire Mobility,” J. Terramechanics, 48(2), pp. 113–123. [CrossRef]
El-Gindy, M. , Lescoe, R. , Oljer, F. , Jojansson, I. , and Trlvedl, M. , 2011, “ Soil Modeling Using FEA and SPH Techniques for a Tire-Soil Interaction,” ASME Paper No. DETC2011-47104.
Li, H. , and Schindler, C. , 2012, “ Three-Dimensional Finite Element and Analytical Modelling of Tyre-Soil Interaction,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part K, 227(1), pp. 42–60.
Smith, W. , and Peng, H. , 2013, “ Modeling of Wheel–Soil Interaction Over Rough Terrain Using the Discrete Element Method,” J. Terramechanics, 50(5–6), pp. 277–287. [CrossRef]
Negrut, D. , Serban, R. , Mazhar, H. , and Heyn, T. , 2014, “ Parallel Computing in Multibody System Dynamics: Why, When and How,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 9(4), p. 041007. [CrossRef]
Wasfy, T. M. , Jayakumar, P. , Mechergui, D. , and Sanikommu, S. , 2016, “ Prediction of Vehicle Mobility on Large-Scale Soft-Soil Terrain Maps Using Physics-Based Simulation,” NDIA Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology Symposium (GVSETS), Novi, MI, Aug. 2–6. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1011318.pdf
Shabana, A. A. , 2005, Dynamics of Multibody Systems, Cambridge University Press, New York. [CrossRef]
Gerstmayr, J. , Sugiyama, H. , and Mikkola, A. , 2013, “ Review on the Absolute Nodal Coordinate Formulation for Large Deformation Analysis of Multibody Systems,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 8(3), p. 031016. [CrossRef]
Sugiyama, H. , Koyama, H. , and Yamashita, H. , 2010, “ Gradient Deficient Curved Beam Element Using the Absolute Nodal Coordinate Formulation,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 5(2), p. 021001. [CrossRef]
Cosin Scientific Software, 2017, “ FTire,” Cosin Scientific Software, München, Germany, accessed Sept. 5, 2017, https://www.cosin.eu/products/cosin_prm/
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, 2017, “ CDTire,” Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, Munich, Germany, accessed Sept. 5, 2017, https://www.itwm.fraunhofer.de/en/departments/mdf/cdtire.html
Yamashita, H. , Jayakumar, P. , and Sugiyama, H. , 2016, “ Physics-Based Flexible Tire Model Integrated With LuGre Tire Friction for Transient Braking and Cornering Analysis,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 11(3), p. 031017. [CrossRef]
Recuero, A. , Serban, R. , Peterson, B. , Sugiyama, H. , Jayakumar, P. , and Negrut, D. , 2017, “ High-Fidelity Approach for Vehicle Mobility Simulation: Nonlinear Finite Element Tires Operating on Granular Material,” J. Terramechanics, 72, pp. 39–54. [CrossRef]
Clark, S. K. , ed., 1981, Mechanics of Pneumatic Tires, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC.
Yamashita, H. , Valkeapää, A. , Jayakumar, P. , and Sugiyama, H. , 2015, “ Continuum Mechanics Based Bilinear Shear Deformable Shell Element Using Absolute Nodal Coordinate Formulation,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 10(5), p. 051012. [CrossRef]
Vu-Quoc, L. , and Tan, X. G. , 2003, “ Optimal Solid Shells for Non-Linear Analyses of Multilayer Composites—I: Statics,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 192(9–10), pp. 975–1016. [CrossRef]
Simo, J. C. , Rifai, M. S. , and Fox, D. D. , 1990, “ On a Stress Resultant Geometrically Exact Shell Model—Part IV: Variable Thickness Shells With Through-the-Thickness Stretching,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 81(1), pp. 91–126.
Andelfinger, U. , and Ramm, E. , 1993, “ EAS-Elements for Two-Dimensional, Three-Dimensional, Plate and Shell Structures and Their Equivalence to HR-Elements,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 36(8), pp. 1311–1337. [CrossRef]
Dvorkin, E. N. , and Bathe, K. J. , 1984, “ A Continuum Mechanics Based Four-Node Shell Element for General Non-Linear Analysis,” Eng. Comput., 1(1), pp. 77–88. [CrossRef]
Betsch, P. , and Stein, E. , 1995, “ An Assumed Strain Approach Avoiding Artificial Thickness Straining for a Non-Linear 4-Node Shell Element,” Commun. Numer. Methods Eng., 11(11), pp. 899–909. [CrossRef]
Yamashita, H. , Matsutani, Y. , and Sugiyama, H. , 2015, “ Longitudinal Tire Dynamics Model for Transient Braking Analysis: ANCF-LuGre Tire Model,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 10(3), p. 031003. [CrossRef]
Oertel, C. , and Fandre, A. , 1999, “ Ride Comfort Simulations and Step Towards Life Time Calculations: RMOD-K and ADAMS,” International ADAMS Conference, Berlin.
Canudas-de-Wit, C. , Tsiotras, P. , Velenis, E. , Basset, M. , and Gissinger, G. , 2003, “ Dynamic Friction Models for Road/Tire Longitudinal Interaction,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 39(3), pp. 189–226. [CrossRef]
Deur, J. , Asgari, J. , and Hrovat, D. , 2004, “ A 3D Brush-Type Dynamic Tire Friction Model,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 42(3), pp. 133–173. [CrossRef]
Lee, E. H. , and Liu, D. T. , 1967, “ Finite Strain Elastic-Plastic Theory Particularly for Plane Wave Analysis,” J. Appl. Phys., 38(1), pp. 19–27. [CrossRef]
Nagtegaal, J. C. , and De Jong, J. E. , 1982, “ Some Aspects of Non-Isotropic Work Hardening in Finite Strain Plasticity,” Plasticity of Metal at Finite Strain, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 65–102.
Nemat-Nasser, S. , 1982, “ On Finite Deformation Elasto-Plasticity,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 18(10), pp. 857–872. [CrossRef]
Nagtegaal, J. C. , 1982, “ On the Implementation of Inelastic Constitutive Equations With Special Reference to Large Deformation Problems,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 33(1–3), pp. 469–484. [CrossRef]
Simo, J. C. , 1992, “ Algorithms for Static and Dynamic Multiplicative Plasticity That Preserve the Classical Return Mapping Schemes of the Infinitesimal Theory,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 99(1), pp. 61–112. [CrossRef]
Simo, J. C. , and Hughes, T. J. R. , 1998, Computational Inelasticity, Springer, New York.
de Souza Neto, E. A. , Peric, D. , and Owen, D. R. J. , 2008, Computational Methods for Plasticity: Theory and Applications, Wiley, West Sussex, UK. [CrossRef]
Crisfield, M. A. , 1996, Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Vol. 2, Wiley, West Sussex, UK.
Helwany, S. , 2007, Applied Soil Mechanics With ABAQUS Applications, Wiley, New York. [CrossRef]
Yamashita, H. , 2016, “ Flexible Multibody Dynamics Approach for Tire Dynamics Simulation,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. http://arc.engin.umich.edu/research/1_16_Tire-Dynamics-Simulation.html
Sugiyama, H. , and Yamashita, H. , 2011, “ Spatial Joint Constraints for the Absolute Nodal Coordinate Formulation Using the Non-Generalized Intermediate Coordinates,” Multibody Syst. Dyn., 26(1), pp. 15–36. [CrossRef]
Hilber, H. M. , Hughes, T. J. R. , and Taylor, R. L. , 1977, “ Improved Numerical Dissipation for Time Integration Algorithms in Structural Dynamics,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 5(3), pp. 283–292. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Normal contact pressure for 4 kN wheel load: (a) normal contact pressure along the longitudinal axis of contact patch coordinate system and (b) normal contact pressure along the lateral axis of contact patch coordinate system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Contact patch lengths for different wheel loads: (a) longitudinal contact patch length and (b) lateral contact patch length

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Tire deflections for different wheel loads: (a) lateral tire deflection and (b) vertical tire deflection

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Tire cross section geometry and layer property

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Nine-node brick element with multiplicative plasticity model: (a) kinematics of 9-node brick element with curvature coordinates and (b) multiplicative decomposition of displacement gradient

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Kinematics of shear deformable laminated composite shell element: (a) shear deformable shell element, (b) collision detection between tire and soil, and (c) contact nodes on tread

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Capped Drucker–Prager failure model: (a) capped drucker-prager yield surface and (b) capped drucker-prager return mapping process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Void ratio versus vertical stress obtained by 1D consolidation test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Stress–strain curve of triaxial test model (200 kPa confining pressure)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Deviator stress versus axial strain curves

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Deviator stress versus mean effective stress at failure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Triaxial soil test apparatus

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Pressure sinkage test model using capped Drucker–Prager model: (a) deformed shape of plate sinkage test model and (b) pressure-sinkage relationship and comparison with ABAQUS model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Soil bin test facility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Variation of void ratio in soil bin

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Tire–soil interaction model using moving soil patch approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of tire forces for 6 and 8 kN wheel loads with 230 kPa inflation pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Side view of tire–soil interaction simulation with moving soil patch approach: (a) 0.8 m long soil patch and (b) 1.25 m long soil patch

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Effect of the moving soil patch size: (a) 0.8 m long soil patch and (b) 1.25 m long soil patch

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

CPU time comparison between complete soil and moving soil patch models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Soil sinkage for different wheel loads and tire inflation pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Longitudinal tire force (Fx) for different wheel loads and tire inflation pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Rolling resistance coefficient (Fx/Fz) for different wheel loads and tire inflation pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Lateral tire force (Fy) for different wheel loads and tire inflation pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Lateral tangential force coefficient (Fy/Fz) for different wheel loads and tire inflation pressure

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In