Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 29 Aug 2018

In-Plane Flexible Ring Tire Model—Part 1: Modeling and Parameter Identification

,
,
,
, and
Page Range: 174 – 219
DOI: 10.2346/tire.18.460303
Save
Download PDF

ABSTRACT

The tire model is essential for accurate and efficient vehicle dynamic simulation. In this article, an in-plane flexible ring tire model is proposed, in which the tire is composed of a rigid rim, a number of discretized lumped mass belt points, and numerous massless tread blocks attached on the belt. One set of tire model parameters is identified by approaching the predicted results with ADAMS® FTire virtual test results for one particular cleat test through the particle swarm method using MATLAB®. Based on the identified parameters, the tire model is further validated by comparing the predicted results with FTire for the static load-deflection tests and other cleat tests. Finally, several important aspects regarding the proposed model are discussed.

Keywords: flexible ring tire model; parameter identification; tire dynamics; particle swarm; tire modeling
FIG. 1
FIG. 1

Proposed flexible ring tire model.

FIG. 2
FIG. 2

Coordinate definition for the FRTM.

FIG. 3
FIG. 3

Free body diagrams: (a) rim; (b) the ith belt point.

FIG. 4
FIG. 4

Coordinate for the spring and damper between neighboring belt points.

FIG. 5
FIG. 5

Force generated by tread block that potentially contacts to the road.

FIG. 6
FIG. 6

ADAMS® test rig: (a) static test; (b) dynamic test.

FIG. 7
FIG. 7

ADAMS® FTire static load-deflection results.

FIG. 8
FIG. 8

ADAMS® FTire dynamic cleat test results for case 1: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 9
FIG. 9

Comparison of the results between FTire and proposed model for case 1: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 10
FIG. 10

Comparison of the load deflection curve between FTire and proposed model.

FIG. 11
FIG. 11

Tire static deflection under different loads.

FIG. 12
FIG. 12

Comparison of the predicted results between FTire and the proposed model for cases 1–3: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 13
FIG. 13

Comparison of the predicted results between FTire and the proposed model for case 1 and 4: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 14
FIG. 14

Comparison of the predicted results between FTire and the proposed model for case 1 and 5: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 15
FIG. 15

Comparison of the predicted results between FTire and the proposed model for cases 1–4 in the frequency domain: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 16
FIG. 16

Comparison of the predicted results between FTire and the proposed model for cases 1, 5, and 6 in the frequency domain: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 17
FIG. 17

Comparison of the predicted results between FTire and the proposed model for cases 1 and 7 in the frequency domain: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 18
FIG. 18

Comparison of the predicted results between FTire and the proposed model for cases 1–4.

FIG. 19
FIG. 19

Comparison of the predicted results between FTire and the proposed model for cases 1, 5, and 6.

FIG. 20
FIG. 20

Comparison of the predicted results between FTire and the proposed model for case 1 and 7.

FIG. 21
FIG. 21

Tire dynamic deflection for cases 1–4.

FIG. 22
FIG. 22

Tire dynamic deflection for cases 1, 5, and 6.

FIG. 23
FIG. 23

Tire dynamic deflection for cases 1 and 7.

FIG. 24
FIG. 24

Parameter sensitivity for overall difference.

FIG. 25
FIG. 25

Parameter sensitivity for peak values.

FIG. 26
FIG. 26

Comparison of the forces between FTire data with noise and predicted results based on parameter set 1: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 27
FIG. 27

Comparison of the forces between FTire data with noise and predicted results based on parameter set 2: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 28
FIG. 28

Comparison of the forces between FTire data with noise and predicted results based on parameter set 3: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 29
FIG. 29

Comparison of the forces between FTire data with noise and predicted results based on parameter set 4: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 30
FIG. 30

Comparison of the forces between FTire data with noise and predicted results based on parameter set 5: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 31
FIG. 31

Comparison of the forces between FTire data with noise and predicted results based on parameter set 6: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 32
FIG. 32

Comparison the forces based on the nominal parameters and the newly identified parameters: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

FIG. 33
FIG. 33

Comparison of the forces based on the nominal parameters and the newly identified parameters: (a) vertical forces; (b) longitudinal forces.

Contributor Notes

3 Corresponding author. Email: james.yang@ttu.edu
  • Download PDF