Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Jul 2017

Feasibility Study for the Identification of FTire Model Parameters Using FE Simulations

,
,
,
, and
Page Range: 200 – 226
DOI: 10.2346/tire.17.450303
Save
Download PDF

ABSTRACT

Normally, FTire model parameters are determined by experimental tests. However, because of the high cost of experiment equipment and limitations in rig design and operating conditions, it is hard to obtain all the required data by experimental tests, especially for some large tires, such as the running wheel tires of straddle-type monorail vehicles. To solve this problem, a method based on finite element (FE) simulations is put forward. To achieve the goal, a three-dimensional FE model of a 345/85R16 radial tire is developed using ABAQUS software. In addition, a modified exponential decay friction model, derived from tire tread rubber friction tests, is put forward and applied in the following FE simulations using the ABAQUS user subroutine FRIC. To verify the accuracy of the present model, tire vertical stiffness test, lateral stiffness test, and tire contour geometry measurement are designed. Through the comparison of measurements and FE simulations, it turns out that the model is capable of predicting tire properties accurately. Tire static, steady-state, modal, and dynamic cleat tests are modeled. Finally, data such as vertical stiffness, cornering stiffness, and natural frequencies are derived from FE simulations. Based on the data derived from FE simulations, the FTire model parameters are identified and then validated by comparing the force responses of the FTire simulation in the ADAMS/Tire test rig and FE simulations. The results show that there is an acceptable agreement between them, reflecting that the method is feasible.

Keywords: FTire; modified exponential decay friction model; experimental tests; FE simulations; straddle-type monorail vehicle
FIG. 1
FIG. 1

Testing machine and rubber specimens.

FIG. 2
FIG. 2

Stress-strain fitting curves of sidewall compound using different material models.

FIG. 3
FIG. 3

Three-dimensional FE model of 345/85 radial tire.

FIG. 4
FIG. 4

Comparison of tire vertical stiffness between experimental test and FE simulation.

FIG. 5
FIG. 5

Comparison of tire lateral stiffness between experimental test and FE simulation.

FIG. 6
FIG. 6

MVF-1A vertical universal friction testing machine.

FIG. 7
FIG. 7

Rubber specimens, cylindrical pins, and their installation positions.

FIG. 8
FIG. 8

Curves of test load versus friction coefficient at different velocities.

FIG. 9
FIG. 9

Curves of test velocity versus friction coefficient at different loads.

FIG. 10
FIG. 10

Three-dimensional fitting surface of friction coefficient.

FIG. 11
FIG. 11

Schematic diagram of the experimental tests.

FIG. 12
FIG. 12

Footprints. Left: camber angle equals 0; right: camber angle equals 0.1047 rad.

FIG. 13
FIG. 13

Relationship between longitudinal force and longitudinal displacement.

FIG. 14
FIG. 14

Relationship between parking torque and rotation angle.

FIG. 15
FIG. 15

Relationship between vertical load and vertical displacement on differently oriented cleats.

FIG. 16
FIG. 16

Relationship between vertical load and vertical displacement of camber tire.

FIG. 17
FIG. 17

Relationship between lateral force and slip angle of tire with and without camber.

FIG. 18
FIG. 18

Relationship between lateral force and inclination angle.

FIG. 19
FIG. 19

Relationship between longitudinal force and inclination angle.

FIG. 20
FIG. 20

First six vibration modes of an unloaded tire with fixed rim 0.

FIG. 21
FIG. 21

FE model for dynamic cleat tests.

FIG. 22
FIG. 22

Longitudinal spindle force responses when the tire is rolling over the cleat at the speed of 20 km/h.

FIG. 23
FIG. 23

Vertical spindle force responses when the tire is rolling over the cleat at the speed of 20 km/h.

FIG. 24
FIG. 24

Validation of vertical stiffness.

FIG. 25
FIG. 25

Validation of lateral stiffness.

FIG. 26
FIG. 26

Validation of vertical force response.

FIG. 27
FIG. 27

Comparison of the longitudinal force responses between FTire and FE simulation.

FIG. 28
FIG. 28

Comparison of the vertical force responses between FTire and FE simulation.

Contributor Notes

1 Presenter/corresponding author. School of Automotive and Traffic Engineering, Jiangsu University, No. 301 Xuefu Road, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu Province, 212013, China. Email: 1547250413@qq.com

Presented at the 35th annual meeting of The Tire Society, Akron, Ohio, September 13–14, 2016.

  • Download PDF