Editorial Type:
Article Category: Other
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Apr 2012

Investigating Applicability of the Meshfree Method to the Structural Analysis of Tires

,
, and
Page Range: 60 – 82
DOI: 10.2346/1945-5852-40.2.60
Save
Download PDF

ABSTRACT

In contrast to the finite element method (FEM), which is widely used in the tire industry nowadays, some alternative methods have been proposed by academic communities over the past decade or so. The meshfree method is one of those new methodologies. Originally intended to remove the burden of creating the mesh that is inherent in FEM, the meshfree method relies on the point data rather than the mesh, which makes it much easier to discretize the geometry. In addition to those modeling issues, it has been found that the meshfree method has several advantages over FEM in handling geometrical nonlinearities, continuities, and so forth. In accordance with those emerging possibilities, the authors have been conducting research on the matter. This article describes the results of the authors' preliminary research on the applicability of the meshfree method to tire analyses, which include the theoretical outline, the strategy of tire modeling, numerical results, comparisons with results of FEM, and conclusions.

Keywords: meshfree method; FEM; RKPM; SCNI; nonlinear; structural analysis; tire
FIG. 1
FIG. 1

Ellipsoidal support centered at node i in two-dimensional case.

FIG. 2
FIG. 2

Shape functions in one-dimensional space: RKPM, interpolatory RKPM, and FEM.

FIG. 3
FIG. 3

Delaunay tessellation, nodal region, and nodal integration.

FIG. 4
FIG. 4

Shallow arch subjected to a point load [13].

FIG. 5
FIG. 5

Load-deflection curves of the shallow arch.

FIG. 6
FIG. 6

Initial and deformed shapes of a cantilever beam.

FIG. 7
FIG. 7

Load-deflection curves of the cantilever beam.

FIG. 8
FIG. 8

Extremely compressed rubber block, meshfree analysis.

FIG. 9
FIG. 9

Extremely compressed rubber block, FEM analysis.

FIG. 10
FIG. 10

Cross-sectional nodal arrangements of the meshfree tire models.

FIG. 11
FIG. 11

Side view of the deformed shape of the meshfree model A.

FIG. 12
FIG. 12

Cut view of the deformed shape of the meshfree model A; contour of absolute displacement is superposed.

FIG. 13
FIG. 13

Comparison of the spring rate: meshfree models, FEA, and experiment.

FIG. 14
FIG. 14

Comparison of the contact pressure: meshfree models, FEA, and experiment.

FIG. 15
FIG. 15

Comparison of the contact pressure–lateral variation at longitudinally middle area of footprint. (Top) Experiment and FEA versus model A. (Bottom) Experiment and FEA versus model B.

Contributor Notes

2 Corresponding author

3 Presenter

  • Download PDF