See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308535976

Development of dynamic base model of a bogie

suspended forwarder

Article in Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part K Journal of Multi-body Dynamics
September 2016
DOI: 10.1177/1464419316671025

CITATIONS READS

0 199

3 authors:

Abbos Ismoilov Ulf Sellgren

KTH Royal Institute of Technology KTH Royal Institute of Technology
5 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS 84 PUBLICATIONS 423 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kjell Andersson
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
52 PUBLICATIONS 127 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design of a 6-DOF haptic Device View project

Tracked forwarders for sustainable forestry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ulf Sellgren on 26 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part K:

J Multi-body Dynamics
Development of dynamic base model 0(0) 115
! IMechE 2016

of a bogie suspended forwarder Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1464419316671025
pik.sagepub.com

Abbos Ismoilov, Ulf Sellgren and Kjell Andersson

Abstract
A forwarder is an off-road working machine that is used to transport logs from logging sites to a landing area that is
accessible by trucks. Soil damage and operator comfort, especially whole-body vibrations when operating on hard and
rough terrain, are crucial issues when developing novel forest machines. Most forwarders on the market are heavy
machines with articulated steering and they are equipped with pairs of wheels mounted on bogies. For such bogie
machines, only the flexibility and the dynamic dissipation in the tyres contribute to the chassis damping. The roll and
lateral motions are the most severe components of the whole-body vibrations. So, developing new traction units, chassis
suspensions and/or cabin suspension are in focus. Model-based design relies on focused models that are as simple as
possible, but not too simple. This paper presents a 12 degrees-of-freedom multi-body dynamics simulation model of a
standard eight-wheeled bogie type of medium-sized forwarder. The presented model is targeted for assessing and
comparing different design solutions. It is shown that a configuration of seven rigid subsystems and eight flexible
tyres represented with the simple and computer efficient Fiala tyre model enables the forwarder dynamic simulation
model to be used to predict the roll and lateral motions of a forwarder operating on hard and rough terrain.

Keywords
Bogie, cabin roll angle, forwarder, hard ground, rough terrain, wheelsoil interaction

Date received: 21 June 2016; accepted: 2 September 2016

Introduction Therefore, designing high-performing and durable

The predominant forest harvesting method in north-
ern Europe is the cut-to-length (CTL) harvesting
method that is performed by specialised two-machines
(see Figure 1) a harvester for felling, delimbing and
bucking trees, and a forwarder that loads and carries
the logs from the harvesting area to a roadside land-
ing area. Both of these o-road machines operate in a
very varied terrain at low speed and they both have a
frame-mounted crane. In Scandinavian countries,
almost 90% of the harvested trees are processed by
harvesters and transported by forwarders.1 Whereas
in North America, only 2030% of logging being
done by CTL, although CTL is perceived to have
many environmental and value recovery advantages,2
as well as a long economic life.3 On average, the actual
economic life of both types of machines is more
than 10,000 operational hours and it may approach
18,000 h.3
Forestry machines for CTL logging must be able to
handle large loads and have good dynamic stability
while operating in various ground conditions, e.g.
rough terrain with hard/soft soil or at hard/soft
ground. Dynamic stability and reduced whole-body
vibrations during motion in rough terrain is essen-
tial for o-road vehicles and working machines.
chassis and suspension systems is of utmost
importance for achieving good dynamic machine
performance.
Currently, most machine dynamic research engin-
eers use analytical computer-aided design techniques
to investigate and to predict and compare how specic
chassis and suspension system designs aect the
dynamic behaviour of machines. Numerical compu-
ter-aided design techniques are potentially ecient
means to minimise development time from concept
to nal product and to provide repeatable results for
any number of test conditions and values for the
design parameters. Developing a wheeled forestry
machine that preserves the terrain from rutting and
the operator from excessive vibrations requires a
proper understanding of the interaction between tyre
and soil. In a previous study,4 a systems engineering
School of Industrial Engineering and Management, KTH Royal Institute
of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Corresponding author:
Abbos Ismoilov, School of Industrial Engineering and Management,
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Brinellvagen 83, SE-100 44, Sweden.
Email: ismoilov@kth.se

Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016
2 Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 0(0)
Figure 1. A typical harvester (left) and a medium-sized forwarder (right).
view was presented on how forestry machines and the
soil preferably should be modelled in order to enable
model-based and simulation-driven design with
respect to design issues as operator comfort, trac-
ability, mobility, and traction.
Most forwarders on the market today have articu-
lated steering and they are equipped with pairs of
wheels mounted on bogies. These machines are not
equipped with any suspension system that can isolate
the machine from vibrations caused by ground dis-
turbances. Furthermore, most forestry machines are
heavy and, consequently, the risk for rutting and
soil compaction during operation is considerably
high. There are, thus, engineering challenges for
both manufacturers and engineers to nd means for
reducing soil damage, rolling resistance, and the daily
vibration dosages for the machine operators, i.e. the
level of whole-body vibrations.
In previously published work,5 based on multi-
body dynamics simulations, a number of passive for-
warder chassis suspension concepts were presented
and their performances were compared from three
perspectives: their gentleness to the terrain and to
the operator, and their energy eciency. A represen-
tative medium-sized bogie type of forwarder was
modied into a virtual pendulum arm suspended for-
warder and its performance was compared with the
bogie suspended forwarder. The simulation model of
the bogie type of forwarder was veried with full-scale
eld measurements.6 By including the FTire tyre
model that takes into account the tyre shape, the air
volume, the stiness of the tyre ring, and the inter-
action with large terrain features, the simulated
dynamic behaviour correlated well with the results
measured in eld tests.6 The drawback of using this
detailed tyre model is the signicant computer
resources required to simulate motion in rough and
varied terrain.
Dynamic stability reects the ability of a working
machine to traverse uneven terrain at a feasible range
of speed and acceleration without causing high stres-
ses in the chassis and without causing excessive vibra-
tions in the operator cabin. Forestry machines must
be capable of traveling highly challenging and varying
Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016
terrains, climbing steep slopes, and traversing areas
covered with boulders and stones, i.e. hard rough ter-
rain. Research with the aim to identify critical design
issues for forestry machines traveling in a sloped ter-
rain was presented in Ismoilov et al.7
The main objective of this study is to build a
computationally ecient multi-body dynamics base
model of a standard eight-wheeled and medium-size
bogie type of forwarder and to verify the simulation
model with measured data from a eld tests that was
carried out with the actual machine operating on a
standardised hard ground test track. The validated
simulation model is targeted to be used as a design
base model that can be congured with dierent types
of traction units to predict traction unit and soil inter-
action and machine dynamics, with specic focus on
the roll behaviour of the front wagon, when operating
on hard and rough terrain.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In the
Field test section, we will review the actual eld test
environment, sensors and test condition. The MBD
simulation model section presents the MSC Adams-
based dynamic simulation model. A verication of
the MDB model and the model-based simulation
results with actual test result is presented in the
Model verication and discussion section. The results
are discussed in the Discussion section, and conclu-
sions of the presented research and the planned
future work are given in the Conclusions and future
work section.
Field test
Test objective
The main objective of the eld test is to gather import-
ant data on the dynamic behaviour of a traditional
medium-size bogie-suspended forwarder, operating
on hard rough terrain. The purpose of the acquired
data is to enable model-based development of the next
generation of forestry machines. The measured data
assist proper tuning and verication of the multi-body
dynamic simulation model, which is targeted to be
used as a reference model for future research on,
Ismoilov et al.
Figure 2. Jalla test field overall view (left), and the bogie forwarder at the starting point of the Skogforsk test track.
Figure 3. Dimensions of the studied 8-wheeled forwarder.
e.g., new modular chassis designs, cabin suspension
systems and tracked traction units.
The eld test was carried out with an unloaded
forwarder on the standardised 28 m long and horizon-
tal Skogforsk test track (see Figure 2) in Jalla, located
approximately 60 km north from Stockholm. The test
track was targeted for repeatable studies of the vibra-
tion levels on dierent machines and to evaluate the
performance of dierent suspension solutions. The
test track, which was developed by Skogforsk and
Hultdins AB, is paved with concrete, and equipped
with a number of unevenly distributed metal obstacles
of the same shape but dierent height. The obstacles
are attached to the ground in two rows, one for each
side of the forwarder. The obstacles in each track are
uniform across the wheel width, i.e. each wheel will
meet a row of two-dimensional obstacles.
In the test, a number of machine parameters were
measured when the machine was traversing the test
track:
Translational vertical, lateral and longitudinal
accelerations in front and rear wagon
Angular pitch and roll rate in front and rear wagon
Bogie angles relative to frame
Machine speed
Vertical static load on each wheel.
Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016
3
The tyre ination pressure was 350 kPa in the four
front tyres and 500 kPa in the four rear tyres.
The modelled forwarder
The forwarder under consideration has a machine
weight around 16 tons and a loading capacity of
12 tons. It is an articulated, eight-wheel machine
with no primary chassis suspension system. The gen-
eral dimensions of the forwarder can be seen in
Figure 3. The forwarders width, called A in Figure 3,
varies between 2760 and 2990 mm, depending on the
tyre size. The forwarder that was used in the
eld test was equipped with Trelleborg 710/50 
26.5 T428 163A8 forestry tyres, giving a total
width of 2990 mm. The propulsion is mechanically
transferred to all eight wheels from a 140 kW diesel
engine through a hydrostatic transmission system.
Inside each bogie box, the tractive power is trans-
mitted to the wheel pair through a chain-sprocket
system, i.e. there is all-wheel traction but no traction
control for the individual wheels in a bogie.
Sensors
In order to capture the translational and angular
motions of the forwarder, two gyroscopes
4 Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 0(0)
(see Figure 4) were mounted on the front and rear
wagons, respectively. Each gyroscope was capable of
measuring translational acceleration in all three direc-
tions (vertical, lateral, and longitudinal) as well as the
pitch and roll angular motions.
When the module is placed on a horizontal at
surface, acceleration (gravity) is only detected in the
Z-direction, as shown in Figure 5.
If the module is tilting backwards, the value for the
Z-axis decreases, the value for the Y-axis increases,
and the gyro1 value becomes negative. When the
module tilts left or right, its Y-axis value increases
or decreases, respectively. Gyro2 value has negative
value while tilting left and positive value while tilting
right (see Figure 6).
Figure 4. Gyroscope module with its X-, Y- and Z-directions.
Figure 5. Gyroscope horizontally on flat surface.
Figure 6. Gyroscope tilted backward (left), and gyroscope tilted left and right (right).
Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016
In order to capture all necessary frame motion sig-
nals from the front and rear wagons, the rear gyro-
scope sensor was attached with screws to the rear
axles lid. The second gyroscope unit was placed
under the operator seat inside the cabin, as shown
in Figure 7.
To get information on all bogie angle motions, four
angle sensors were mounted on each bogie, close to
the pivot joint (see Figure 8, left). During the test, the
machine speed was measured in two independent
ways: an external sensor that was mounted in front
of the forwarder (see the middle part of Figure 8), and
from the machine ECU.
Before starting the tests, the vertical load on each
wheel mas measured with a weight measurement
scale, as was shown in the rightmost picture in
Figure 8. The total machine weight was obtained by
adding all the eight static wheel loads.
MBD simulation model
Tools for multibody dynamics (MBD) enable model-
ling and simulating complex assemblies and it may
provide input to analysis of dynamic system behav-
iour at the specied range of operation. With MBD,
engineers can potentially create and test virtual proto-
types of mechanical systems in a fraction of the
time and cost required to build and test physical
prototypes, and predict of dynamics of moving
parts, how loads and the forces are distributed
Ismoilov et al.
Figure 7. Locations for the gyroscopes: the front one is located under the seat (left), the rear one is mounted on top of the rear axle
(right).
Figure 8. Angle sensor location on front bogie (left), speed sensor (middle), and weight measurement (right).
throughout mechanical systems.8 But, this requires a
thoroughly veried model.
In this study, an MBD model of the studied for-
warder was created with the commercial MBD tool
Adams from MSC software. A core package (Adams/
View, Adams/Solver, and Adams/PostProcessor)
enables import of geometry from most major CAD
systems. In Adams, a model of a system is built by
creating and assembling (rigid/exible) parts, connect-
ing them with joints, and driving them with motion
generators and/or forces.
Creating road file
The test track has obstacles with the same shape
but dierent heights, 150 mm, 250 mm and 350 mm,
respectively, as shown in Figure 9. The lower part of
Figure 9 shows the top view of the test track with the
driving direction from right to left. The widths and
heights of the obstacles, as well as the irregular dis-
tance between them are designed to meet the terrain
Class 2.9
In this model-based study, all three dierently sized
obstacles were dened in Matlab. In the next model-
ling step, the geometry of each obstacle was repre-
sented by discrete nodal coordinates that were used
to dene facet surface elements. The nodes and facet
elements were then translated to a road template le
Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016
5
that was further translated to a 3D Adams road le
(see Figure 10).
Importing forwarder CAD model
In Adams/View, there is a possibility to import geo-
metric models in many dierent CAD formats10 and
get them converted into Adams proprietary geometric
elements. In this study, the forwarder CAD model was
translated from the ISO STEP format to the Solid
Edge proprietary format and the parts were re-
assembled in Solid Edge. It is important to save each
subsystem in the global coordinate system before
importing the model to Adams. In this way, it is easy
to match the orientation as in the full CAD assembly.
A detailed list of the subsystems of the studied for-
warder, with data of their mass property data and their
location in the global coordinate system, is presented
in Table 1. The detailed CAD model of the forwarder
parts is shown as an exploded view in Figure 11.
After importing the geometric subsystem models to
Adams, the next step was to dene the mass properties
of the imported bodies and dening constraints
imposed by joints between pairs of interacting bodies.
Constraints remove degrees of freedom (DOF) from
the model by adding algebraic constraint equations
to the governing system of dierential and algebraic
equations (DAEs). A joint removes from one to six
6 Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 0(0)
Figure 9. Dimensions and configuration of the three types of test track obstacles.
Figure 10. Skogforsk test track model in Adams.
DOF, depending on joint type. Dening a single xed
joint in Adams adds six algebraic constraint equations,
three equations to restrict relative translational motion
and three equations to restrict relative rotational
motion. To reduce the risk to create redundant con-
straints and to increase the simulation eciency, a pre-
ferred method is to merge bodies instead of using xed
joints. In the Adams model used in this study, the sub-
systems in red colour in Table 1 are merged to a single
body (Front frame) and the subsystems in blue are
merged to the Rear frame body. In this way, the
number of forwarder bodies is reduced from 25 to 15,
as shown in Table 2. The orientation of the bodies in
the Adams simulation model and the center of the mass
position of the front and rear frames are shown in
Figure 20 and Figure 21 in Appendix I.
Tyre model
Proper tyre modelling is essential for performing high-
quality simulations of the ride and handling charac-
teristics of a vehicle in general, and of an o-road
wheeled machine in particular. With Adams/Tyre it
is possible to model tyres for either vehicle-handling,
ride and comfort, or vehicle durability analyses. Ride
and comfort analyses are useful for assessing vehicle
Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016
vibrations due to uneven roads with short wavelength
obstacles (shorter than the tyre circumference), such
as level crossings, grooves or brick roads.11 Tyre is a
complex entity, and it forms an excellent basis for
research and development.1214 A modelling approach
that consists of a discretised exible belt with damping
and inertia model was proposed by Mavros et al. at
the University of Loughborough for analysis of the
transient road handling properties of a tyre.15
In terms of tyres, there are many dierent kinds of
tyre models that can be used in ADAMS such as
Fiala, UA, Pacejka 89, FTire, etc.10 Simulation
models of large o-road tyres on non-deformable ter-
rain require a lot of tyre characteristic properties in
the form of side-force versus slip angle curves which
are not readily available for large tyres.16 Many dif-
ferent tyre models have been developed and validated
for passenger cars; however, they are not applicable
for large tyres. Researchers at the University of
Pretoria have measured side-force versus slip angle
for a specic Michelin 16.00R20 XZL tyre and used
these data to parametrise a few tyre models.16 The
study showed that implementation of Fiala tyre
requires good prior knowledge of the operating load
and test result close to the operating condition. On the
other hand, the Fiala tyre model does not take into
account the speed dependency of the stiness and
damping. If the simulation test happens to be at a
low and constant speed, the accuracy of the simula-
tion result is much higher than if it runs with a varying
speed. Since the Fiala tyre model is simple and
detailed enough for most simulation cases, it has
been used in many studies1722 where the road inclin-
ation angle is not a major factor and where longitu-
dinal and lateral slip eects may be considered
unrelated. However, the Fiala tyre model is not obvi-
ously applicable for soft soil simulations. There are
other types of tyre models that can be used for soft
soil tire interaction simulation, e.g. durability tyre
Ismoilov et al. 7

Table 1. List of forwarder subsystems.

Number of Number of
Letter Subsystem subsystems Letter Subsystems subsystems

A Front frame part 1 J Front frame part of 1

of front wagon rear wagon
B Engine cover 1 K Rear wheel 4
C Cabin 1 L Rear bogie 2
D Hydraulic tank 1 M Rear axle 1
E Rear frame part 1 N Rear frame part of 1
of front wagon rear wagon
F Front axle 1 O Cages 1
G Front bogie 2 P Crane 1
H Front wheel 4 Q Mount base for crane 1
I Mid joint and articulation part 1
Total number of subsystems 25

Figure 11. Exploded view of the Adams forwarder model.

Table 2. List of bodies in the MBD forwarder model,18 Ftire model, etc. The drawback of these
simulation model. models is that they require considerable computer
resources. So, there must be a trade-o between simu-
Number of
Bodies subsystems Weight (kg) lation accuracy and simulation wall-clock time.
In the presented study, the Fiala tyre model, with a
Front frame 1 5860 mass of 170 kg, a width of 710 mm and an unloaded
Front bogie 2 2  1206.5 radius of 670 mm was used to represent the 710/
Front wheel 4 4  170 45-26.5 tyre from Trelleborg. The reason for chosing
Articulation part 1 250 the Fiala tyre model was because the main interest in
Rear frame 1 6060 this study was the vertical forces and the lateral and
Rear wheel 4 4  170 roll motions of the cabin, when the forwarder was
Rear bogie 2 2  1126.5 operating on hard rough terrain, i.e. not on soft and
fairly at soil. The Fiala tyre model is a physical tyre
Total: 15 18196
model and the carcass is modelled as a beam on an

Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016
8 Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 0(0)

elastic foundation in the lateral direction. Elastic elem- Table 4 summarises the input that the Fiala tyre
ents provide the contact between carcass and the model uses to calculate ground contact forces.
road.10 Table 3 gives detailed information of that tyre.
The Fiala model is the standard tyre model in all
Adams/Tyre modules. The input to the Fiala tyre Model verification and discussion
model originates from two sources:
Global coordinate system
. Input parameters from the tyre property le (.tir), In order to get the location of centre of mass for the
such as tyre unloaded radius, that the tyre model front and rear wagons with the required accuracy, it is
references. important to choose a correct global coordinate
. Tyre kinematic state variables, such as slip angle system for whole system. The location of the global
(a), which Adams/Tyre calculates. coordinate system should match the original (0, 0, 0)
position in the CAD model. In the developed Adams
model, the location of the global coordinate system is
Table 3. Tyre properties.23
where the articulation joint connects the front fame
Section width with the articulation part, the positive vertical Z-axis
Diameter 1340 of the system is pointing upwards, and the posi-
Rolling circumference 4020 tive longitudinal Y-axis is pointing backwards
Static loaded radius 625 towards the rear part of the forwarder, as shown in
Speed radius index 625 Figure 12. After performing the virtual test in Adams,
Nominal rim AG24.0000 which replicates the physical eld test, the transla-
Permitted rim(s) tional and angular motions of the model can be com-
Pressure For Tracks (bar) 6.00
pared with the measured data from the eld test, and
the model can thus be veried.
Nominal pressure (bar) 5.00
Tread type LS-2
Tube type Tubetype Machine weight and wheel weight distribution
Tube 700/50-26.5 In order to get good correlation between the simula-
Steelbelted Steelbelt tion results and the results from the eld tests, it is
important to have a good match of the total machine

Table 4. Explicit input state parameters for the Fiala tyre model.11

Parameter Value Description Fiala usage Source

Mt 170 (kg) Mass of tyre Vertical force (Fz) -

Alpha State (deg) Slip angle Lateral force (Fy) Tyre kinematic state
from Adams/Solver
Vertical_damping 10 (Ns/mm) Vertical damping coefficient Vertical damping force (Fz) Tyre property file (.tir)
Vertical_stiffness 1200 (N/mm) Vertical tyre stiffness Vertical force (Fz) Tyre property file (.tir)
CSLIP 10000 (N) Partial derivative of longitudinal Longitudinal force (Fx) Tyre property file (.tir)
force (Fx) with respect to
longitudinal slip ratio (S)
at zero longitudinal slip
CALPHA 800 (N) Partial derivative of lateral Lateral force (Fy) Tyre property file (.tir)
force (Fy) with respect to
slip angle (h) at zero slip angle
UMIN 0.9 () Coefficient of friction with Fx, Fy, Tz Tyre property file (.tir)
full slip (slip ratio 1)
UMAX 1.0 () Coefficient of friction at zero slip Fx, Fy, Tz Tyre property file (.tir)
Rolling_resistance 1.0 () Rolling resistance coefficient Rolling resistance Tyre property file (.tir)
moment (Ty)
Ss State () Longitudinal slip ratio Longitudinal force (Fx) Tyre kinematic state
from Adams/Solver
pen State (mm) Penetration (tyre deflection) Vertical force (Fz) Tyre kinematic state
from Adams/Solver
Vpen State (mm/s) d/dt (penetration) Vertical force (Fz) Tyre kinematic state
from Adams/Solver

Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016
Ismoilov et al. 9

Figure 12. A view of the forwarder MBD simulation model.

Table 5. Machine weight distribution on the eight wheels. However, during the test, recording of the signals
started when the machine began to move, i.e. before
Weight (kg) Weight (kg)
it reached the actual test track. To enable comparison
Wheel position Actual test Simulation model
of measured and simulated dynamic behaviour, there
Front wagon, Left bogie, 2580 2571 is consequently a need to lter the measured data and
Front wheel (FLF) to identify the point in time when the machine enters
Front wagon, Left bogie, 2570 2571 the test track and when the machine leaves the track.
Rear wheel (FLR) The average speed on the track must correlate
Front wagon, Right bogie, 2580 2562 with the average speed in the simulation model. In
Front wheel (FRF) Figure 14, a comparison between simulated speed
Front wagon, Right bogie, 2510 2562 and eld test speed is given.
Rear wheel (FRR)
Rear wagon, Left bogie, 2000 1972
Front wheel (RLF)
Bogie angles
Rear wagon, Left bogie, 1990 1985 In the eld tests, four angle sensors were placed on the
Rear wheel (RLR) middle top surfaces of each of the four bogie units
Rear wagon, Right bogie, 1990 1986 (see Figure 8). These sensors were used to measure
Front wheel (RRF) the bogie angles when the machine was traversing
Rear wagon, Right bogie, 1970 1986 the test track. The measured bogie angles and the
Rear wheel (RRR) bogie angles from the virtual test, as a function of
Total mass (kg) 18,190 18,195 time, are presented in Figure 15.
Forestry tyres when used in hard and rough terrain
are relatively sti compared to tyres used in other
weight and its distribution. It might be necessary to working machines and there is not much deformation
adjust, or ne-tune, the centre of mass of the MBD of a wheel when it is rolling over an obstacle.
system model, to get the correct weight distribution Therefore, a simple way to verify the bogie angle in
between the wheels. The total machine weight and the a simulation is to perform a kinematic analysis of
individual static wheel loads, as measured in the eld bogie and obstacle dimensions. As can be observed
test, and the weight of the MBD submodels are given in Figure 15, the rst high peak in front bogie angle
in Table 5. Figure 13 shows the acronyms for the eight (Front left and Front right) occurs when the front
wheels. wheels are interacting with the rst obstacles on the
test track (see Figures 9 and 10). The distance between
the mounting points of the two bogie wheels is clearly
Machine speed visible in Figure 3. The rst angle peak for the front
The target speed for the machine, when it was tra- bogie, visible in Figure 15, should correlate with the
versing the test track, was 1.8 km/h, i.e. 0.5 m/s. smallest obstacle and the highest peaks must correlate

Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016
10 Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 0(0)

Figure 13. Acronyms for the wheel positions.

Figure 14. Simulated machine speed and speed measured at the field test.

with the highest obstacles (see Figure 9). A rst
approximation of the bogie angle is that it should be
an inverse sine of obstacle height divided by the wheel
base, as shown in equation (1).
 
L derivative of the angular position over time, as shown
 arcsin
h in equation (2).
Table 6 compares eld measurements, simulation
results and analytical results for the front bogie peak
angles.
Angular speed
The angular motions of the front and rear wagons are
measured with the two gyroscope sensors placed under
the operators seat, and on top of the rear axle, respect-
simulation response in Figure 16, and the same com-
parison can be seen for the rear wagon in Figure 17.
The gyroscope gives us the rate of change of the
angular position over time (angular velocity) with a
unit of (deg/s). This means that the sensor gives the
1
d
_ 2
dt
Rate feedback is extremely useful in control engin-
eering. It is usually used in combination with position
feedback. To obtain the angular position, the integra-
tion of the angular velocity numerically is required, as
shown in equation (3).
Z t X
t

ively (see Figure 7). Roll and pitch rate signals from the t _ tdt  _ tTs 3
0 0
sensor located under the seat are compared with the

Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016
Ismoilov et al. 11

Front left bogie Front right bogie

15 15
Measurement data Measurement data
Simulation data Simulation data
10 10

5 5
Angle [deg]

Angle [deg]
0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
time [sec] time [sec]

Rear left bogie Rear left bogie

15 15
Measurement data Measurement data
Simulation data Simulation data
10 10

5 5
Angle [deg]

Angle [deg]
0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10

-15 -15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
time [sec] time [sec]

Figure 15. Comparison of simulated bogie angles and the angles for the four bogies measured in the field test.

Table 6. Bogie peak angles.
h, Obstacle L  bogie angles
height Wheel
(mm) base (mm) Measurement Simulation Analytical
150 1520 5.33
350 11.40
Figure 18 shows the integrated cabin roll rate and
rear wagon roll rate from the simulation. The peak
roll angle for the two wagons is around 6  .
A standard FFT transform with a rectangular
lter, i.e. no ltering, shows the measured and simu-
lated roll angle speed of the front wagon in the fre-
quency domain, see Figure 19.
Discussion
Forwarder operators are exposed to large whole
body vibrations in all six directions when
operating in rough terrain, but most severe is the
roll motion and the large lateral motions caused
by the roll. It is consequently of high importance
to develop durable and eective means for reducing
the roll and lateral motions that present operators are
exposed to.
In the presented study, a multi-body dynamics
simulation model of a standard medium-size eight-
wheeled bogie type of forwarder was developed in
MSC Adams and veried with eld measurements.
The purpose for the model is to serve as a base
model for virtually assessing and comparing dierent
design means, such as passive, active and semi-active
chassis damping concepts and also dierent types
of ground contact units, e.g. wheels, tracks, and
combinations of wheels and tracks. The interface
5.11 5.66 between forwarder and hard ground in the presented
12.14 13.31 base model was represented as a Fiala wheel model
running on a hard test track with irregularly placed
obstacles of three dierent sizes. The simulation
results, with a focus on roll, were compared with
dynamic machine responses measured at full-scale
eld tests.
In the rst stage of developing the multi-body
dynamic simulation model, the road le coordinate
nodes and elements that represent the Skogforsk test
track were calculated in Matlab. These data were then
translated to a road template le that was used in the
multi-dynamic simulation model.
Then, the detailed CAD geometry model of the
studied forwarder was imported to Adams, and the
machine weight and its centre of gravity are tuned
with the actual measured wheel weights.
In the simulation model, all wheels in the machine
model are driven by a constant angular velocity to
represent the constant longitudinal speed in the eld
test. The machine speed in the simulations is very
similar to the average speed measured in the eld
test. However, the simulation result shows that the
variation in speed during an overpass diers signi-
cantly compared to the measured speed. In future
studies, it is recommended to use torque-control on
each wheel as a means to keep a constant speed.

Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016
12 Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 0(0)

Front wagon angular speed

5
Measurement data
4 Simulation data
pitch rate [deg/sec]

3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time [sec]

15
Measurement data
Simulation data
10
roll rate [deg/sec]

-5

-10

-15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time [sec]

Figure 16. Simulated and measured pitch and roll angular speed history of the front wagon.

Rear wagon angular speed

5
Measurement data
4 Simulation data

3
pitch rate [deg/sec]

2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time [sec]

20
Measurement data
Simulation data
15
roll rate [deg/sec]

10

-5

-10

-15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time [sec]

Figure 17. Simulated and measured pitch and roll angular speed of the rear wagon.

An extension of the purpose for the base model, caused by the simplied tyre model on the transla-
e.g. for investigating the power performance on and tional, vertical, lateral, or longitudinal motions.
rutting of soft soil, most likely would require a more These motions all contribute to the whole-body vibra-
detailed tyre model, such as the signicantly more tion dosages for the machine operator, and also on
computer demanding FTire model. This study does soil damage. Studies with such general scope would
not present any analysis of the simulation error also require a more sophisticated tyre model.

Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016
Ismoilov et al. 13

Figure 18. Simulation roll angle history for the front and rear wagons.

1.5
Measurement data
Simulation data
roll rate [deg/sec]

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Frequency [Hz]

Figure 19. Measured and simulated front wagon roll angle speed in the frequency domain.

types of ground contact units, e.g. wheels and/or track

Conclusions and future work units, operating on dierent types of rough terrain.
An MSC Adams-based multi-body dynamics model The presented study shows that for simulations
of an eight-wheeled bogie-type and medium-sized focused on the low-frequency roll behaviour, the com-
o-road forestry machine has been developed. The puter-ecient Fiala model could very well be used,
purpose of the model is to study the eects from con- also when the terrain is fairly rough, i.e. the heights
tact unit design changes on the roll behaviour in the of the obstacles are up to 30% of the wheel diameter.
operator cabin. The roll behaviour when travelling on The presented base model is thus validated for usage
hard rough terrain has been veried with eld tests as a base model for comparing the roll (and lateral)
performed on a standardised hard ground test track motion performance of dierent ground contact units.
that represents a Class 2 terrain. The dynamic roll The presented base model will be further used to
behaviour of the machine model, congured with compare the roll performance on hard and rough ter-
the Fiala tyre model, correlated well with measured rain of various traction unit concepts.
eld test data.
When the wheels in a bogie were overpassing the Declaration of Conflicting Interests
smallest obstacles, the bogie angles showed very good The author(s) declared no potential conicts of interest with
correlation between analytical estimate, simulation, respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
and eld measurement. When the wheels were over- this article.
passing the highest obstacles, the measured bogie
angles were a bit smaller than the simulated. Funding
The present simulation model, at the presented level The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following nancial
of idealisation, shows similar results for angular motion, support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
roll and pitch rates, as those measured in the eld tests. of this article: The assistance from Bjorn Lofgren at the
The presented model is thus useful to predict max- Swedish Forestry Research Institute Skogforsk is gratefully
imum roll angle, which is a characteristic machine acknowledged for enabling and supporting the presented
performance parameter, for machines with dierent research.

Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016
14
References
1. Athanassiadis D, Lidestav DG and Wasterlund I. Fuel,
hydraulic oil and lubricant consumption in Swedish
mechanized harvesting operations, 1996. Int J Eng
1999; 10: 5966.
2. Chiorescu S and Gronlund A. Assessing the role of the
harvester within the forestry-wood chain. Forest Prod J
2001; 51: 7784.
3. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N and Picchi G. Annual
use, economic life and residual value of cut-
to-length harvesting machines. J Forest Econ 2011; 17:
378387.
4. Sellgren U, Pirnazarov A, Andersson K, et al.
Model-based development of machines for sustainable
forestry. In: 12th European regional conference of the
international society for terrain-vehicle systems, South
Africa, 2428 September 2012.
5. Ismoilov A, Sellgren U, Andersson K, et al. A compari-
son of novel chassis suspended machines for sustainable
forestry. J Terramech 2015; 58: 5968.
6. Karlsson O and Nisserud F. Development of a dynamic
vehicle model of a forwarder (in Swedish). MSc Thesis,
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden, 2010.
7. Ismoilov A, Sellgren U, Pirnazarov A, et al.
Investigating the dynamic behavior of a mid-sized
forestry machine on sloped rough terrain. In: 18th
International conference of International Society for
Terrain-Vehicle Systems, Seoul, South Korea, 2225
September 2014.
8. Adams, http://www.mscsoftware.com/product/adams
(accessed 01 June 2015).
9. Vibration measurements on the test track (in Swedish),
http://www.skogforsk.se/kunskap/kunskapsbanken/
2007/vibrationsmatningar-pa-provbana/ (accessed 29
May 2015).
10. MSC SimCompanion Adams/View help Adams
2014, https://simcompanion.mscsoftware.com/infocen-
ter/index?page=content&id=DOC10647&cat=2014_
ADAMS_DOCS&actp=LIST (accessed 31 May 2015).
11. Adams tire, http://simcompanion.mscsoftware.com/
infocenter/index?page=content&id=DOC9310&cat=
11P7155&actp=LIST (accessed 13 October 2015).
12. Senatore C and Sandu C. Torque distribution influence
on tractive efficiency and mobility of off-road wheeled
vehicles. J Terramech 2011; 48: 372383.
13. Sharaf AM, Rahnejat H and King PD. Analysis of
handling characteristics of all-wheel-drive off-road
vehicles. Int J Heavy Veh Syst 2008; 15: 89.
14. Modelling VS, Umsrithong A and Sandu C. Stochastic
transient tyre model for vehicle dynamic simulations on
rough rigid ground. Int J Veh Syst Model Test 2012; 7:
351371.
Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016
Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 0(0)
15. Mavros G, Rahnejat H and King P. Analysis of the
transient handling properties of a tyre, based on the
coupling of a flexible carcassbelt model with a separ-
ate tread incorporating transient viscoelastic frictional
properties. Veh Syst Dynam 2005; 43: 199208.
16. Babulal Y, Stallmann MJ and Els PS. Parameterisation
and modelling of large off-road tyres for on-road hand-
ling analyses. J Terramech 2015; 61: 7785.
17. Lu SB, Li YN and Dong YL. Dynamic modeling and
virtual test of a new all terrain off-road vehicle. Appl
Mech Mater 2011; 86: 125128.
18. Lehtonen TJ. Validation of an agricultural tractor MBS
model. Int J Heavy Veh Syst 2005; 12: 1627.
19. Jayakumar P, Jain A, Poplawski J, et al. Advanced
mobility testbed for dynamic semi-autonomous
unmanned ground vehicles. In: NATO Meeting AVT-
241/RSM-022: Technological and Operational Problems
Connected with UGV Application for Future Military
Operations, Rzeszow, Poland, 2022 April 2015.
20. Hahn Y, Hulbert G, Ma Z, et al. Off-road Vehicle
Dynamic Simulation Based on Slip-Shifted On-road
Tire Handling Model. SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-
0771, 2008. doi:10.4271/2008-01-0771.
21. Rehnberg A, Drugge L and Trigell AS. Snaking stabil-
ity of articulated frame steer vehicles with axle suspen-
sion. Int J Heavy Veh Syst 2010; 17: 119138.
22. Rehnberg A and Drugge L. Ride comfort simulation of
a wheel loader with suspended axles. Int J. Veh Syst
Model Test 2008; 3: 168.
23. Twin 428SB Twin Forestry Trelleborg wheel systems,
http://www.trelleborg.com/en/wheelsystems/Products-
and-Solutions/Forestry-tires/Cross-Ply/Forestry-har-
vester-forwarderskidder/Twin-428SB/ (accessed 2 June
2015).
Appendix
Notation
h obstacle height (m)
L wheel base (m)
t time (s)
Ts sampling time (s)
roll angle ( )
 bogie angle ( )
_ roll rate (deg/s)
 Ismoilov et al. 15

Appendix 1
There are 15 bodies in the multibody simulation model of the forwarder in Adams and they are connected to each
with 14 revolute joints, as shown in Figure 20. Without any constrains, each body has six degrees of freedom
(DOF), which means 15 moving parts have 90 DOF. However, each revolute joint removes 5 DOF and each
motion removes 1 DOF. That brings this particular simulation model has 12 DOFs.

Figure 20. The orientation of the bodies of the forwarder model.

The centre of mass position in the X and Z directions for front and rear frame is shown in Figure 21. Both front
and rear wagons centre of mass position is aligned with the global coordinate system in Y direction.

Figure 21. The centre of mass position for the front and rear frames of the forwarder model.

Downloaded from pik.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on September 26, 2016

View publication stats