Design of An Off-Road Rubber Tracked Ground Vehicle (TGV) For Rugged Terrain Conditions

Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Fo
rP
ee
rR
ev
iew
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aime
Page 1 of 30 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
1
2
3 Design of an Off-Road Rubber Tracked Ground Vehicle (TGV) for Rugged Terrain
4
5 Conditions: Part (1)
6
7
8 Munzer S. Y. Ebaid Mohammed Mohdy Zughayer
9 Philadelphia University-Jordan Philadelphia University-Jordan
10
Email: mebaid2@philadelphia.edu.jo Email: mohammedzughayer@gmail.com
11
12 Tel: +962 (0) 796013220 Tel: +962 (0) 795427753
13
14
15
16
ABSTRACT
17
18 The focus of this paper is to present the designing of an off-road rubber tracked ground vehicle for rugged terrain
19
20 conditions (deep snow, mud, sand and rocks). Knowledge and understanding of terramechnics theory and off-road
21
Fo
22 vehicle engineering principles are necessary to carry out the design of such a vehicle and to make engineers better
23
qualified to perform their jobs in agriculture, construction and military. It is important to recognize that the design of a
24
rP
25 tracked ground vehicle must involve the study of material structure and selection, suspension dynamics, internal
26
27 combustion engine, tracking systems, loading stress analysis and the requirements for manufacturing. All of these
28
ee
29 procedures must be followed to reach an optimum design. The overall design weight is 14.714 kN and the designed
30
31 dimensions of the proposed vehicle were of 3500mm length, 2000mm width, 1550 mm height and minimum
rR
32
33 ground clearance of 200 mm . A 165hp Subaru gasoline engine was selected and the dimensions of the designed
34
35
ev
tracking system consists of a contact length of 1700 mm , track height of 850 mm , and track width of 380 mm .
36
37 This paper represents part one of the work while part two will address the manufacturing procedure and testing of the
38
iew
39 vehicle to validate the design work and modify where it is necessary.

40
41
42 Keywords: Off-road vehicle design; Terramechancs theory; rubber track, rugged terrain, track system
43
44
45 1. INTRODUCTION
46
47 Automotive engineering is a combination of mechanical, electrical and materials science. Knowledge and
48
49 understanding of off-road-vehicle, terramechanics and computer related aided methods are necessary tools for
50 design requirements. Few papers were found in the open literature which dealt with work on off-road-vehicles. Over
51
52 the years, several empirical and theoretical mathematical models related to off-road vehicle performance have been
53
54 developed [1, 2]. Similarly Wong, [3] used a computer software model to study the mobility of tracked vehicles over
55
snow conditions.
56
57
58
Kheiralla et al. [4] designed a small tracked vehicle for difficult terrain based on off-road vehicle engineering
59
60 techniques using AutoCAD and MathCAD computer software. The work involved designing main chassis and power
1
Advances in Mechanical Engineering Page 2 of 30
1
2
3 transmission systems, skid steering system, and rubber track system. In their work. Ataur et al. [5] presented a
4
5 prototype model to study the parameters that affect a rubber track vehicle in Malaysia. It was found that track width,
6
road-wheel numbers and spacing of the vehicle influenced the vehicle resistance motion. While the vehicle
7
8 steerability during turning is affected by vehicle travelling speed.
9
10
11 Wong and Huang [6] carried out an evaluation comparison for performance between tractive wheel and tracked
12
13 vehicles based on two computer simulation models. Authors claimed that this study may be considered as a
14
15 reference data for designers to compare between wheels and tracks.
16
17
18 The performance of rubber tracked vehicles has been addressed by many researchers such Dwyer et al. [7], Ma
19
and Perkins, [8], Okello et al. [9], Wong et al. [10], Garber and Wong [11]. The work was mainly carried out to
20
21 investigate the relationship between the soil and the track system based on pressure–sinkage relationships given by
Fo
22
23 Bekker [12, 13]. Other researchers carried out further investigations on the stress distribution at the tire–soil
24
rP
25 interface [14-18]. They all concluded that vertical stress distribution is not uniform. Based on that, a model to predict
26 the vertical stress distribution has been developed by Keller and Arvidsson [19]. Ataur et al. [20] developed a
27
28
ee
performance model for tracked vehicle running in straight-line based on several parameters. These are; number of
29
30 road-wheels, sprocket size, tracked size, idler and geometric arrangement and position of vehicle centroid.
31
rR
32
33 Regarding the tire-soil interaction, several papers have been published in this field, among these, the work done by
34
Janosi and Hanamoto [21]. They claimed that there is a relation between the soil shear strength and the rolling
35
ev
36 resistance of tracked wheels. Yong R. N. [22] developed various models to investigate the wheel slippage of tyres
37
38
iew
and their energy losses. Further work on prediction of tyre traction was carried out by many researchers [23-27].
39
40 Genga et al. [28] studied the vibration and the damping effects in pneumatic tyres based on the relationship between
41
real modes and complex modes.
42
43
44 Research studies in modelling the track vehicle dynamics have been carried out on vibration levels in tracked vehicle
45
46 [29-33]. Banerjee et al. [34] used ADAMS model to estimate the ride vibration by using different types of terrains at
47
various speeds.
48
49
50 Experimental work on off-road vehicle performance has been cited. Dwyer et al. [35] found that tractive performance
51
52 of a tracked agricultural tractor is mainly affected by contact length of track. Watanabe et al. [36] investigated
53
experimentally using different types of suspension tracked vehicles the dynamic soil-track interaction on dry sand.
54
55 Senatore et al. [37] carried out experimental work to investigate the performance of an off-road tracked vehicle
56
57 driving on three different sizes of natural dry granular materials and results showed that slip ranged between -50%
58
59 and +50% .
60
2
1
2
3 Based on previous studies, it was found that a compheransive design approach for all the components of an off-road
4
5 rubber tracked vehicle was scarce in the open literature as far as the authors are aware of. This motivated the
6
current work which involves a complete design approach for designing an off-road rubber tracked ground vehicle
7
8 (TGV) for terrain conditions.
9
10
11 2. DESIGN OF RUBBER TRACKED GROUND VEHICLE (TGV)
12
13 2.1 DESIGN CRITERIA
14
15 Several parameters should be considered for the design of an off-road rubber tracked ground vehicle (TGV). The
16
17 following criteria were considered in the vehicle design as reported by [4]:
18
19 1. Simplicity in design, ease of fabrication from locally available material.
20
2. Low cost materials and components.
21
Fo
22 3. The use of skid steering system.

23
24 4. The use of rubber track will reduce vehicle sinkage.
rP
25
26 5. Rear larger diameter sprockets will reduce track slippage and increase vehicle traction.
27 6. Lightweight and rigid chassis with enough space to accommodate power train, transmission and track
28
ee
29 system, and various vehicle attachments.

30
31 7. Robust in construction with improve comfort and visibility.
rR
32
8. The use of adequate suspension system to minimize vibration.
33
34
35
ev
2.2 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS

36
37
38 The proposed vehicle overall design consisted of rubber track system, main chassis, power transmission system,,
iew
39
steering system, suspension system and the vehicle body. The following assumptions are made in the computation
40
41 used in the design of the proposed vehicle:
42
43
44 2.3 Tracking System Conceptual Design
45
46
47 2.3.1 Selected Terrain Parameters
48
49 Terrain condition parameters for the design of the rubber track system were based on the work reported by selected
50
51 Ataur et al. [38] as shown in Table 1. Also, the assumed values used in the design calculations are given in Table 2
52
53 are based on the work given by [4]
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
3
1
2
3 Table 1 Terrain parameters [43].
4
5 Terrain Parameter Mean Value
6
7 bulk density (γ d ) 1.53 kN m3
8
9 cohesiveness (C ) 1.36 kN m2
10
11 Frictional angle (φ ) 23.78o
12
13 Shear deformation modulus (K w ) 1.19 cm
14
15
Surface mat stiffness (mm ) 27.07 kN m3
16
17
Underlying stiffness (k p ) 224.38 kn m3
18
19
20 Table 2 Design parameters [4].
21
Fo
Design Parameter Value

22
23 Critical sinkage (Z c ) 10cm
24
(i )
rP
25 Slippage 20%
26
27 Track entry angle (ϕ ) 78 o
28
(Tp )
ee
29 Track pitch 1.0 cm

30
31 Coefficient of lateral resistance(µ t ) 0.5
rR
32
Coefficient of motion resistance ( f r ) 0.1
33
34 Vehicle Theoretical velocity (Vt ) 20 km hr
35
ev
36 Vehicle speed fluctuation (δ ) 3.15%

37
38 Contact pressure ( p ) 51.63 kPa
iew
39
40
41
42 2.3.2 Determination of Road wheel Diameter
43
44 The following Eqn. was used by Wong [1] to determine the road wheel diameter
45
46 Drw = Rs − G (1)
47
48 It is assumed that G = 20cm and Rs = 50cm , then Drw = 30cm
49
50 Number of road wheel is determined by the following Eqn. [1]
51
52
 Drs + D fi 
53 L ×  

54  2 
55 nr = (2)
Drw + G
56
57
58
59 2.3.3 Track Width Determination
60
The track width b can be computed based on the following Eqn. given by Wong [1]
4
1
2
3
4 b=
(
 W − 2 × mm × Z c2 × L )

5 (
 2 × Z c L × k p + 2 × mm × Z c  ) (3)
6
7
8
9 2.3.4 Tractive Performance
10
11 2.3.4.1 Tractive Force
12
13 The tractive force Ft of an off-road tracked vehicle is given by the following Eqn. [4]
14
15   −i× L  
Kw  (
Kw  
)
16 Ft = [(2 × A× C ) + (W × tan φ )] 1 −
 1 − e
 i × L   (4)
17 
18   
19
20 Ft = 8.73 kN
21
Fo
22
23 2.3.4.2 Off-Road Vehicle Resistance Components to Motion
24
rP
25 The off-road vehicle resistance components to motion consists of internal, external, and resistance due to the overall
26
27 components of the track elements as reported by Kheiralla et al. [4]. The internal motion resistance is due to the
28
ee
track-suspension system and rolling resistance. While external motion resistance is due to terrain compaction as
29
30 reported by Ataur et al. [5].
31
rR
32
33 a. Off-Road Vehicle External Resistance
34
35
ev
The external resistance due to compacting the terrain Rc is given by:

36
37
38  K × Z 2   4 
3 
iew
Rc = 2 b  + 
p c
39 × m × Z
  3Dh  (5)
 2
m c

40  
41
42
43 b. Off-Road Vehicle Internal Resistance
44
45 Bekker [12] proposed the following equation (6) to calculate the the internal resistance R, of a light weight tracked
46
47 vehicle:
48
49 Rin = W (133 + 2.5Vt ) (6)
50
51
52 c. Off-Road Vehicle Resistance of the track overall components
53
54 The resistance of the overall components of the track is given as by [4]:
55
56   φ   φ 
57 Rm = 2 b  γ d Z c2 tan 2  45 +   + CZ c tan 45 +  (7)
58   2   2 
59
60 The total motion resistance Rtot of the rubber tracked vehicle is given by:
5
1
2
3 Rtot = Rc + Rin + Rm (8)
4
5
6
The total motion resistance is computed to be 927 N. Consequently, for a tracked vehicle having pay load of 14.714
7
8
9
kN, Rtot is computed to be 6.3% of the total weight. Wong [39] reported that Rtot ranged between 6 - 9% of the
10
total weight.
11
12
13
2.3.5 Idler Diameter Size
14
15 In this current work, it is assumed that the sinkage is considered to be 0.1m, and therefore, the corresponding idler
16
17
diameter D fi and the track entry angle are 0.4m 0.4m and 78 o . These values were based on the work reported by
18
19
20 Ataur et al. [5].
21
Fo
22
23 2.3.6 Sprocket Diameter Size
24
According to Wong [39], vehicle speed fluctuation δ for industrial and agriculture should be in the range between
rP
25
26
27
2.75%-3.72%. In this work, δ is considered to be 3.15%, and the pitch diameter Tb equal to 100mm . The sprocket
28
ee
29 diameter D spr can be computed according to the Eqn. given by Ataur et al. [5] as follows:
30
31 TP
Dspr =
rR
32 (9)
33
1 − (1 − δ )2
34
35 D spr = 0.4m
ev
36
37
38
iew
2.3.7 Drawbar Pull and Power Performance

39
40 The drawbar power Pd in kW , is given according to Ataur et al. [5]
41
42
43 Pd =
1
(Fd × Vact ) (9)
44
3.672
45
46
Where: F d = Ft − Rtot (10)
47
48 And, Vac = Vth (1 − i ) (11)
49
50 The actual speed Vact is the speed of the vehicle is considered if there is slip i , and the slip in this current work is
51
52 assumed to be 20%. The calculated values are F d = 7.80 kN , Pd = 34 kW
53
54
55 2.3.8 Determination of vehicle power
56
57
58 The power of the tracked vehicle Pe in kW is computed according to Eqn. (12) given by Ataur et al. [5] and found to
59
60 be 95 kW
6
1
2
3
1  Ft × Vt 
4 Pe =   (12)
5 3.762  µ t 
6
7
8 2.3.9 Tractive Efficiency
9
It is defined as reported by Wong [2]
10
11
Pd
12 ηt = × 100% (13)
13 Pe
14
15
16 2.3.10 Rubber Track System Configuration
17
18 Design calculations based on the Eqns. (1-13) and terrain parameters in Table 1 were computed. The output results
19
are shown in Table 3.
20
21
Fo
22 Table 3 Tracking vehicle specifications

23
24 Track Parameters Symbol Value
rP
25
26 Track width b 0.38m
27 Track pitch 0.1m
Tp
28
ee
29 Track height Ht 0.85m

30
Track total length Lc 6.0m
31
rR
32 Track ground contact length L 1.7m

33 Sprocket diameter 0.4m
D spr
34
35
ev
Idler diameter D fi 0.4m

36
Diameter of wheels Dr 0.3m
37
38
iew
Space between wheels Sr 0.5m

39
Number of road wheels nr 4 (each side)
40
41 Supporting rollers ns 3 (each side)
42
Diameter of supporting rollers Ds 0.12m
43
44
45
46
Vehicle Parameters Dimension Value
47
48 weight 14.714 KN
W
49
50 Length L 3.5 m
51 Width B 2m
52 Height H 1.55 m
53
54
55 2.4 CHASSIS DESIGN
56
57 Several considerations in the design of the vehicles chassis should be accounted for. These are; the linking of the
58
59 power train, control, and suspension systems together, so that to drive the vehicle safely and comfort ability. Weight
60
distribution and suspension operation that are influenced by mounting points and the overall frame geometry. The
7
1
2
3 chassis must also be strong enough to withstand all the loads imposed upon it. There are different types of
4
5 available chassis design such as ladder frame chassis, space frame chassis, monocoque chassis, and
6
7 backbone chassis as reported by [40].
8
9
10
11 2.4.1 Chassis Conceptual Design
12
13 The conceptual chassis design is made of tubes as shown in Fig. 1. A space-frame is made up of straight triangular
14
15 members. The final chassis design after many modification processes is shown in Fig. 2.
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
ee
29
30
31
rR
32 Fig. 1 Initial conceptual chassis design of the TGV

33
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Fig. 2 Final conceptual chassis design of the TGV
48
49
50
51 The total weight of the proposed chassis is about 400-kg. The proposed overall dimensions of the chassis are 3.5-m
52
53 length, 1.30-m width, and 1.10-m height as shown in Fig. 3. The chassis will conform of structural steel of different
54
pipe sizes welded together. Figs. 4 and 5 indicate the proposed chassis design with dimensions.
55
56
57
58
59
60
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
ee
29
30
31
rR
32
33
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41 Fig. 3 3D-views of the final chassis design
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo
22
23 Fig. 4 Dimensional side view of the designed chassis (mm)
24
rP
25
26
27
28
ee
29
30
31
rR
32
33
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47 Fig. 5 Dimensional top view of the designed base chassis (mm)
48
49
50 The design of chassis is based on pipe size selection, wall thickness, and location of bracing members. Chassis is
51
52 made from steel pipes AISI 1010. Two different sizes of the pipes are used. These are 1.5-inch Dia. for the base as
53
shown in Fig. 6, 1.25-inch Dia. for the role cage, and for some trusses between the base and the role cage as shown
54
55 in Fig. 7. Wall thickness for all tube sizes are 3 mm, Dia. Sheets of steel thickness 0.5mm are placed at the chassis
56
57 base and the sides to increase strength and rigidity of the system as shown in Fig. 8.
58
59
60
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Fig. 6 Dimensions of pipes (1.25” dia., red coulour)
21
Fo
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
ee
29
30
31
rR
32
33
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42 Fig. 7 Dimensions of pipes (1.25” Dia. blue coulour)
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 Fig. 8 Side view of the chassis with sheets of steel thickness of 0.5mm
59
60
11
1
2
3 2.4.2 Stress Analysis
4
5
6 In general, stresses on the chassis are caused by bending loads due to the weight of the components and applied
7
normally to an axis that produces a bending moment. in this current work, the total weight of the TGV is 14.714 KN.
8
9 To evaluate the upper bound and bending stress and displacement on the chassis based on the total weight of
10
11 14.714. Two designs of the main chassis were investigated and the results of static simulation for displacement and
12
13 stresses for the initial and final designs are shown in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. It can be observed that no critical
14
displacement or stresses points appeared on the final design of the proposed chassis.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
ee
29
30
31
rR
32
33
34
35
ev
36 Fig. 9 Static displacement simulation results for final design of the main chassis
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57 Fig. 10 Upper bound axle and bending stress for final design of main chassis
58
59
60
12
1
2
3 2.5 POWERTRAIN SYSTEM
4
5
6 2.5.1 Engine Selection
7
8 Engine selection should have certain requirements such as high efficiency, fuel economy, lower pollution emission,
9
and long life. Also, focus on comfort, noise, vibration and harshness. The proposed engine for the current work is
10
11 Subaru EJ20 DOHC 2.0L Boxer as shown in Fig. 11 is a popular engine brand and available in most the local
12
13 shops. Buying a used engine from the local market is more economical than buying a new one. This engine is
14
15 belongs to EJ series, which was firstly appeared in 1989 under the hood of Subaru Legacy. Two-liter EJ20 is the first
16
motor of EJ family. It replaced the old EA82 1.8-liter engine and became the major engine for each Subaru model.
17
18 EJ20 motor, as well as the predecessor, is four-cylinders opposed (boxer) gasoline engine. The engine has
19
20 aluminum cylinder block with dry cast iron sleeves installed inside. The most common version of the naturally
21
Fo
aspirated engine EJ20E has two single overhead camshaft cylinder heads (SOHC). The head has 4 valves per
22
23 cylinder. Diameter of intake valve is 36 mm, exhaust 32 mm. Camshafts are driven by timing belt from the crankshaft;
24
rP
25 the timing belt must be changed every 60,000 miles.

26
27
28
ee
29
30
31
rR
32
33
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51 Fig. 11 Subaru EJ20 DOHC 2.0L Boxer
52
53
54
2.5.2 Engine Specifications
55
56 The selection of the engine is based on the availability in the local market. The selected engine specifications are
57
58 presented in Table 4.
59
60
13
1
2
3 Table 4 Engine Specifications
4
5 Engine Parameter Specification
6
7 Manufacturer Subaru
8 Model EJ20
9 cylinders 4
10 Displacement, cc 1994
11 Bore, mm 92.0
12 Stroke, mm 75.0
13 Power 165 hp @ 6800 rpm, 121 kW @ 6800rpm
14 Torque 187 nm @ 3200 rpm, 138 Ib-ft @ 3200 rpm
Engine Weight, Kg 140
15
16 Fuel System Multipoint Injection
17 Fuel Gasoline
18
19
20 2.5.3 Transmission System Selection
21
Fo
22 The proposed transmission is a tiptronic and has been chosen based on studies and researches as shown in Fig. 12.
23
24 In tiptronic, manual shifting is controlled through buttons with a plus sign for up-shifting and a minus sign for down-
rP
25
26 shifting. This is similar to what many sports cars use in order to give an authentic feel.
27
28
ee
29
30
31
rR
32
33
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 Fig. 12 Tiptronic gear lever
46
47
48
49 2.4.5 Engine and Transmission Mounting
50
51 Engine and Transmission are referred to as “Powertrain “unit which is mounted on the chassis of a vehicle using
52
53 “Mounts “.These mounts are either a rubber metal bushings and hydraulic dampers to sophisticated steel rubber
54
mounts as shown in Fig. 13, they are used at the attachment points to serve as a counteract to the static load of the
55
56 powertrain unit and to limit the maximum displacement caused by load shifts or high torques. These mounts also
57
58 help in reducing borne noise. We can summarize engine mounts functions as follows:
59
60 • Support.
• Damping “Low Frequency, Large Excitation Amplitudes”.
14
1
2
3 • Isolation " high frequency, small excitation amplitudes"
4
5
6
.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo
22 Fig. 13 Subaru engine mounts

23
24
rP
25
2.6 STEERING SYSTEM
26
27
28 2.6.1 Steering System Design Requirements
ee
29
30
The design requirements of the steering system are as follows:
31
rR
32
33 • Steering system mechanism.
34
35 •
ev
Steering system geometry.

36
37 • Steering system dynamics.
38
iew
• The steering must be highly responsive.

39
40
41
42
2.6.2 Clutch-Brake Steering
43
44 The skid steering" or "differential steering is used in this current work for turning the tracked vehicle. In addition to
45
46 steering the vehicle, a steering transmission system must be easy to use over rough and unfamiliar ground. Fig. 14
47
48 shows illustration of the proposed a skid steering attached to the final drive for the vehicle based on the work by
49
Kheiralla [4].
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Fig. 14 Illustration of proposed skid steering [4]
15
1
2
3
4
5 The mechanics of skid steering is described by Bekker [13] as shown in Fig. 15.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo
22 Fig. 15 Illustration of proposed skid steering [13]

23
24
rP
25
The thrust of the outside and inside tracks required to achieve steady state turn can be computed by the following
26
27 expressions
28
ee
29 fr × W M r
30 F0 = + (14)
2 B
31
rR
32
fr × W M r
33 Fi = − (15)
34 2 B
35
ev
Turning resistance moment can be computed as follows:

36
37
µt × W × L
38 Mr =
iew
(16)
39 4
40
Steerability of tracked vehicle is determind by:
41
42
43 L 2 C 
=  + tan φ − f r  (17)
44 B µt  p 
45
46
47
48 Using the values listed in Table 1 as reported by [4] and Eqns. 3-6, the values of inside Fi , outside thrust F o , the
49
50 turning resistance motion M r , and steerability L B can be obtained, respectively as follows:
51
52 Fi = 0.74kN , F0 = 2.69 kN , M r = 3.13, L B = 1.6,
53
54
55
56 In the current work, the ratio of steerability L B = 1.7 1.6 = 1.06 . This means that the proposed vehicle will be able
57
58 to steer on the specified terrain without spinning. In order to achieve that , a proposed of the steering system is
59
shown in Fig. 16 and the proposed disc brake is shown in Fig. 17.
60
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo
22
23
24 Fig. 16 Proposed sticks of the steering system Fig. 17 Proposed disk brake component
rP
25
26
27 2.7 SUSPENSION SYSTEM
28
ee
29
30 2.7.1 Suspension System Design Requirements
31
rR
32
33 Various analysis are needed as requirements for the design of the suspension system, these are:
34
• Load analysis: Will increase the performance of the suspension system, ensuring durability, and safety.
35
ev
36
37
• Dynamic simulation: Vibration dampening for the users and engine mounts is necessary to ensure safety and
38
iew
performance.
39
40 • Material analysis: The materials to be utilized for this design must be cost efficient, easy to work on, adaptable,
41
42 easy to procure, and performance achieving.
43
44
The proposed suspension should be very effective in reducing vibration caused by rubber tires, springs and uneven
45
46 surfaces.
47
48
49 2.7.2 Shock Absorber Selection
50
51 The selected proposed shock absorber is of type XGS series 4000 used in Mitsubishi Triton MK and Nissan Patrol of
52
53 air shocks type.
54
55
56 2.8 DESIGN PROCESS OF TRACKING SYSTEM
57
58 2.8.1 Tracking system chassis
59
60
17
1
2
3 The proposed tracking system chassis consists of tubular pipes. The chassis will conform of structural
4
5 steel tubes of different pipe sizes that are welded together. The proposed overall dimensions of the track
6
7 system chassis are 2000mm in length and 300mm in width, as shown in Fig. 18. The spaces between
8
9 transverse pipes are different and depend on the sprocket position, idler, wheels and suspension system.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo
22
23
24 Fig. 18 Top view drawing of the tracking chassis with dimensions in (mm)
rP
25
26
27
28 The design of chassis is based on pipe size selection, wall thickness, and location of bracing members. Chassis is
ee
29
made from steel pipes AISI 1010. Two different sizes of the pipes are used. These are 1.25-inch Dia. blue pipes for
30
31 top and bottom and 1-inch Dia. yellow pipes for the trusses between the sides as shown in Fig. 20. Wall thickness for
rR
32
33 all pipes sizes are 3 mm, Dia.
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
Fig. 19 Dimension of pipes for the chassis (Blue pipes 1.25” Dia.) (yellow pipes 1” Dia.)
43
44
45
46
47 2.8.2 Blades
48
49
Blades are used to connect the tracking system chassis with the chassis of the vehicle. After several attempts, it was
50
51 found that using these blades are the best way to connect the chassis of the vehicle with the chassis of the tracking
52
53 system. The dimensions of each blade are 20-cm length, 15-cm width and 2-cm Dia. of the holes as shown in Fig.
54
55 20. Screws are used to connect two blades together as shown in Fig. 21.
56
57
58
59
60
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo
22
23
24 Fig. 20 Dimensional drawing of the blade (cm) Fig. Fig. 21 Method of connecting the blades
rP
25
26
27
28 2.8.3 Rubber of Tracking System
ee
29
30 Rubber tracks are used in this design due to its high breaking distance on all terrain types (ice, snow, mud, rugged
31
rR
32 terrain), it can withstand high speed for longer period, and acceleration can be increased effectively.. The proposed
33
34 rubber tracking system design is made of two separate segments of rubber of 12-mm thickness, 12-cm width and 14-
35
ev
cm is the distance between the two segments as shown in Fig. 22. The dimensions (mm) of rubber tracking system
36
37 are shown in Fig. 23.
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 Fig. 22 Proposed rubber tracking system
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Fig. 23 Side view drawing of the rubber tracking system with dimensions in (mm)
18
19
20
21
Fo
22
23 U-steel is designed and manufactured to connect the two separate segments rubber from outside as shown in Fig.
24
24. The dimensions of U-steel are shown in Fig. 25.
rP
25
26
27
Research Researches and studies showed that U-steel component is considered as the best connection option for
28
ee
29 rugged terrain and to be fitted outside the rubber track to handle all the condition and circumstances. Fins are used
30
31 to be fitted on the inside of the rubber track to keep the wheel track positioned in its location and to prevent it from
rR
32
33 tottering or swinging as shown in Fig. 26. The dimensions of a single fin are shown in Fig. 27.
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 Fig. 24 Way of connect U-steel to the rubber Fig. 25 U-steel dimensions in (mm)
59
60
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo
22 Fig. 26 Fitting method of the fins into the Fig. 27 Detailed dimensions (cm) of a single fin
23 rubber tracking system
24
rP
25
26
27 2.8.4 Wheels
28
ee
29 The proposed conceptual wheels design for the tracking system is consisted of 4 wheels of 30-cm Dia. fitted on the
30
31 bottom of the track, and 3 wheels of 12-cm Dia. fitted at the top, as shown in Fig. 28.
rR
32
33
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 Fig. 28 Rubber tracking system with fitted wheels
60
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 2.8.5 Steel Support for Road-Wheels
8
9 Steel support design for the wheels is shown in Fig. 29. Whereby one end is connected to the chassis and the other
10
end is connected between each two wheels as shown in Fig. 30. The design drawing of the steel support with
11
12 dimensions (mm) is shown in Fig. 31.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
ee
29
30
31
rR
32
33
34 Fig. 29 Diagram of steel support for wheels Fig. 30 Wheels Assembly
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Fig. 31 Detailed drawing of the steel support for the wheels with dimensions in (mm)
22
1
2
3 2.8.6 Sprocket and Idler
4
5
6 The conceptual proposed sprocket design for the tracking system is shown in the Fig. 32. The sprocket is 40-cm
7
8 Dia., number of teeth 18, pitch is 4-cm. The conceptual proposed idler design for the tracking vehicle is shown in the
9
Fig. 33. Idler is 40-cm Dia.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
ee
29
30 Fig. 32 Schematic proposed design of sprocket Fig. 33 Schematic Drawing of idler push spring
31
rR
32
33
2.8.9 Rubber Tracking System with the Main Chassis
34
35
ev
36 Figures 34 and 35 show different views of the intial design of the rubber tracking vehicle whereby the main chassis
37
38 is pushed forward. However, the final design of rubber tracking vehicle is shown in Figs. 36 and 37 whereby the
iew
39 main chassis is pushed backward. Figs. 38 and 39 show the tracking vehicle with dimensions (mm) and
40
41 center of gravity.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Fig. 34 Side view of first conceptual design of rubber tracking vehicle
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fo
22 Fig. 35 Isometric view of first conceptual design of rubber tracking vehicle

23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
ee
29
30
31
rR
32
33
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40 Fig. 36 Side view of rubber tracking vehicle final design
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 Fig. 37 Isometric view of rubber tracking vehicle final design
60
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Fig. 38 Side view for the centriod of the vehicle
21
Fo
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
ee
29
30
31
rR
32
33
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Fig. 39 Front view of the vehicle with dimensions (mm)
48
49
50
51
3. CONCLUSION
52
53
54 A rubber tracked vehicle for all rugged terrain (ATV) was designed. The theoretical design work of the main
55
56 components have been determined based on off-road terramechanics theory, These components are the main
57
58 chassis, rubber tracking system, suspension system, engine selection and computer programming, transmission
59 system, brakes, exhaust and fuel systems. It is important to recognize that the design of a tracked ground vehicle
60
must involve the study and understanding of off-road terramechanics theory, material structure, suspension
25
1
2
3 dynamics, internal combustion engine, selection of materials, tracking system design, and the requirements for
4
5 manufacturing. All of these procedures must be followed to reach an optimum design. A conceptual rubber tracked
6
vehicle was successfully developed. The following results were obtained:
7
8 a. A complete design of all terrain vehicle ATV was achieved as shown in Fig. 38 and 39. Also, the technical
9
10 specifications of the proposed vehicle are given in Table 3.
11
12 b. Stress load and displacement analysis for the vehicle main chassis were carried out to determine critical loading
13
and displacement points.
14
15 c. A 165hp Subaru engine was selected including the transmission system.
16
17 d. A rubber tracking system was successfully designed. The designed track has a track ground contact length of
18
19 1.7m, track height of 0.85m and track width of 0.38m for the designed vehicle weight of 14.714kN.
20 e. Tractive performance of off-road vehicles is influenced by the tyre-terrain interactions.
21
Fo
22
23
24 ACKNOWLEDGENENT
rP
25
26 The authors would like to express their gratitude and appreciation to Philadelphia University higher
27
28 administration and to the Faculty of Research and Higher Studies for their financial support. Also, would
ee
29
30 like to extend their deepest thanks to Mechanical engineering workshops for their assistance and support
31
rR
throughout the project.

32
33
34
35 NOMENCLATURE
ev
36
37 SYMBOL MEANING UNIT
38
iew
39 A Contact area
40 m2
41 B Tread vehicle m
42 C Terrain cohesiveness
kN m3
43 Road wheel diameter
Dr m
44
45 D fi Front idler diameter m
46 D spr Sprocket diameter m
47
48 Dh Hydraulic diameter m
49 Fi Inside thrust N
50
F0 Outside thrust N
51
52 Fd Drawbar pull force N
53 Tractive effort
Ft N
54
fr Coefficient of motion resistance
55 -------
56 G Space between consecutive road wheels m
57 Ht Vehicle track height m
58
H Vehicle height m
59
i slippage m
60
Kw Shear deformation modulus -------
26
1
2
3 Kp Terrain strength
4 kN m3
5 L Vehicle length m
6 Lt Vehicle track contact length m
7 Turning resistance motion
Mr
8
mm Terrain mat strength
9 kN m3
10 Drawbar pull power
Pd kW
11
Pth Theoretical power kW
12
13 Pe Engine power kW
14 External resistance due to compaction
15
Rc kN
16 Rin Internal resistance due to compaction kN
17 Rm Motion resistance for track elements kN
18
Rtot Total resistance kN
19
20 TP Track pitch m
21 Vehicle theoretical velocity
Fo
Vth ms
22
Vac Vehicle actual velocity ms
23
24 W Vehicle weight kN
rP
25 Zc Critical sinkage m
26
27
28
ee
Greek Symbols
29
30 SYMBOL MEANING UNIT
31
rR
32
33 φ Track entry angle degree
34 µt Coefficient of lateral resistance -------
35
ev
δ Vehicle speed fluctuation m

36
γd Bulk density
kN m3
37
38
iew
39
40
41 ACKNOWLEDGENENT
42
43 The author would like to express their gratitude and appreciation to Philadelphia University higher
44
45 administration and to the Faculty of Research and Higher Studies for their financial and unlimited support.
46
47 Also, would like to extend my deepest thanks to the Mechanical Engineering Department for their
48
assistance and support throughout the project.
49
50
51
52 REFERENCES
53
[1] Wong, J. Y. Terramechancs and off-road vehicles. Amsterdam. The Netherlands; Elsevier Publisher B. V., (1989).
54
55 [2] Wong, J. Y. Theory of ground vehicle. 2nd edition, John Wiley and sons, Inc. New York, (2001).
56
57 [3] Wong, J.Y. Development of high-mobility tracked vehicles for over snow operations. Journal of Terramechanics
58
59 46,141–155, (2009).
60
27
1
2
3 [4] Kheiralla, A. F., Alseed, Y. G., Eltigani, A., Yousif, E. A. Conceptual design of a rubber tracked mini- vehicle for
4
5 small holders using off-road vehicle engineering techniques. International Conference on Trends in Industrial and
6
Mechanical Engineering (ICTIME'2012), March 24-25, Dubai, (2012).
7
8 [5] Ataur, R., Yahya, A., Zohadie, M., Ishak, W., Ahmad, D. Design Parameters Optimization Simulation of a
9
10 Prototype Segmented Rubber Track Vehicle for Sepang Peat in Malaysia. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 2
11
12 (3): 655-671, (2005).
13
[6] Wong, J. Y., Huang, W. Wheels vs. tracks – A fundamental evaluation from the traction perspective. Journal of
14
15 Terramechanics, 43(1), 27-42, (2006).
16
17 [7] Dwyer, M. J., Okello, J. A., Scarlett, A. J. A theoretical and experimental investigation of rubber tracks for
18
19 agriculture. J. Terramech. 30, 285–298, (1993)
20 [8] Ma, Z. D., Perkins, N. C. A track-wheel-terrain interaction model for dynamic simulation of tracked vehicles. Veh.
21
Fo
22 Sys. Dyn.: Int. J. Veh. Mech. Mobility 37, 401–421, (2002).

23
24 [9] Okello, J. A., Watany, M., Crolla, D. A. A theoretical and experimental investigation of rubber track performance
rP
25
models. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 69, 15–24, (1998).
26
27 [10] Wong, J. Y., Garber, M., Preston-Thomas, J. Theoretical prediction and experimental substantiation of the
28
ee
29 ground pressure distribution and tractive performance of tracked vehicles. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 198D (15), 265–
30
31 285, (1986)
rR
32
[11] Garber, M., Wong, J. Y. Prediction of ground pressure distribution under tracked vehicles—I: an analytical
33
34 method for predicting ground pressure distribution. J. Terramech. 18, 1–23, (1981).
35
ev
36 [12] Bekker, M. G. Introduction to Terrain-Vehicle Systems. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, (1969)
37
38 [13] Bekker, M. G. Theory of Land Locomotion. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, (1956).
iew
39 [14] Keller, T., Trautner, A., Arvidsson, J. Stress distribution and soil displacement under a rubber-tracked and a
40
41 wheeled tractor during ploughing, both on-land and within furrows. Soil Till. Res. 68, 39–47, (2002)
42
43 [15] Arvidsson, J., Westlin, H., Keller, T., Gillberg, M. Rubber track systems for conventional tractors–effects on soil
44
compaction and traction. Soil Till. Res. 117, 103–109, (2011).
45
46 [16] Keller, T., Arvidsson, J. Technical solutions to reduce the risk of subsoil compaction: effects of dual wheels,
47
48 tandem wheels and tyre inflation pressure on stress propagation in soil. Soil Till. Res. 79, 191–206, (2004).
49
50 [17] Keller, T., Lamandé, M. Challenges in the development of analytical soil compaction models. Soil Till. Res. 111,
51
54–64, (2010).
52
53 [18] Keller, T., Défossez, P., Weisskopf, P., Arvidsson, J., Richard, G. SoilFlex: a model for prediction of soil stresses
54
55 and soil compaction due to agricultural field traffic including a synthesis of analytical approaches. Soil Till. Res. 93,
56
391–411, (2007).
57
58 [19] Keller T., Arvidsson J. A model for prediction of vertical stress distribution near the soil surface below rubber-
59
60 tracked undercarriage systems fitted on agricultural vehicles. Soil & Tillage Research 155, 116–123, (2016).
28
1
2
3 [20] Ataur A., Yahaya, A., Ahmad, D. Modellization of the special segmented rubber tracked vehicle design
4
5 processes on peat terrain in Malaysia. Jurnal Mekanikal June, Bil. 17, 56 – 86, (2004).
6
[21] Janosi, Z., Hanamoto, B. Analytical Determination of Drawbar Pull As A Function of Slip on Tracked Vehicles in
7
8 Deformable Soils. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Terrain-Vehicles Systems, Turin, (1961).
9
10 [22] Yong R. N. Analytical Predictive Requirements for Physical Performance of Mobility. ASAE, Michigan, 72-616,
11
12 (1972).
13
[23] Brixius, W. W. Prediction Equations for Bias Ply Tires. ASAE pp.87-1622, Michigan, (1987).
14
15 [24] Zoz, F. M. Predicting Tractor Field Performance. ASAE, Michigan 87- 1623, (1987).
16
17 [25] Wood, R. K., Burt, E. C., Johnson, C. E. Thrust To Dynamic Load Relationship For a Pneumatic Drive Tire.
18
19 ASAE, Michigan, 88-1642, (1988).
20 [26] Wood R. K., Burt, E. C., Johnson, C. E. Tire Thrust As Affected By Dynamic Load. Proceedings of the 10th
21
Fo
22 International Conference of the ISTVS, Kobe, Japan, 205-216, (1990).

23
24 [27] Upadhyaya, S. K. A Semi-Empirical Traction Prediction Equation for Radial Ply Tires. ASAE, Michigan, 97-1023,
rP
25
(1997).
26
27 [28] Genga, Z., Popovb A. A., Cole, D. J.Measurement, identification and modelling of damping in pneumatic tyres.
28
ee
29 Int. J. Mechan. Sci., 49 (10), 1077-1094, (2007).

30
31 [29] Subburaj, K., Dokainish, M. A. A survey of direct time integration methods in computational structural dynamics II
rR
32
Implicit methods. Comput Struct. 32(6):1387–401, (1989).
33
34 [30] Hada, M. K. Tracked vehicle motion dynamics. MTech thesis, Institute of Armament Technology, Pune; (1996).
35
ev
36 [34] Rakheja, S., Afonso, M. F. R., Sankar, S. Dynamic analysis of tracked vehicles with trailing arm suspension and
37
38 assessment of ride vibrations. Int. J. Veh Des 13(1):56–77, (1992).
iew
39 [31] Balamurugan, V. Dynamic analysis of a military tracked vehicle. Defense Sci J 50:155–65, (2000).
40
41 [32] Sujatha C., Goswami, A. K., Roopchand, J. Vibration and ride comfort studies on a tracked vehicle; Heavy
42
43 vehicle systems. Int J Veh Des. 9(3):241–52, (2002).
44
[33] Brezeski, P., Perlikowski, P., Yanchuk, S., Kapitaniak, T. The dynamics of the pendulum suspended on the
45
46 forced Duffing oscillator. Division of Dynamics, Technical University of Lodz, Stefanowskiego 1/15, Poland, July 12;
47
48 (2012).
49
50 [34] Banerjee, S., Balamurugan, V., Krishnakumar, R. Ride dynamics mathematical model for a single station
51
representation of tracked vehicle. Journal of Terramechanics. 53, 47–58, (2014).
52
53 [35] Dwyer, M. J., Okello, J. A., Scarlett, A. J. A theoretical and experimental investigation of rubber tracks for
54
55 agriculture. Journal of Terramechanics, 30(4):285 – 298, (1993).
56
[36] Watanabe, K., Murakami, Kitano, M., Katahira, T. Experimental characterization of dynamic soil-track interaction
57
58 on dry sand. Journal of Terramechanics, 30(2):111 – 131, (1993).
59
60
29
1
2
3 [37] Senatore C., Jayakumarb, P., K. Iagnemma, K. Experimental study of lightweight tracked vehicle performance
4
5 on dry granular materials. Proceedings of the ISTVS 7th Americas Regional Conference, Tampa, FL, USA.
6
November, 4-7, (2013).
7
8 [38] Ataur, R., Yahya, A., Zohadie, M., Ishak, W., Ahmad, D., Ishak, W., Kheiralla A. F. Mechanical properties in
9
10 relation to vehicle mobility of Sepang peat terrain in Malaysia. J. Terramechanics. 41(1):25-40. (2004).
11
12 [39] Wong, J. Y. Optimization of design parameters of rigid-link track systems using an advanced computer aided
13
method. Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs, Part D, J. Automobile Eng., 212: 153-167, (1998)
14
15 [40] Turner, S. Chassis design analysis for formula student car. MSc thesis, School of Engineering, University of
16
17 Warwick, (2009).
18
19
20
21
Fo
22
23
24
rP
25
26
27
28
ee
29
30
31
rR
32
33
34
35
ev
36
37
38
iew
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
30

Design of An Off-Road Rubber Tracked Ground Vehicle (TGV) For Rugged Terrain Conditions

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Design of An Off-Road Rubber Tracked Ground Vehicle (TGV) For Rugged Terrain Conditions

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

39 vehicle to validate the design work and modify where it is necessary.

22 3. The use of skid steering system.

29 system, and various vehicle attachments.

2.2 DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS

Design Parameter Value

29 Track pitch 1.0 cm

36 Vehicle speed fluctuation (δ ) 3.15%

The external resistance due to compacting the terrain Rc is given by:

2.3.7 Drawbar Pull and Power Performance

22 Table 3 Tracking vehicle specifications

29 Track height Ht 0.85m

32 Track ground contact length L 1.7m

Idler diameter D fi 0.4m

Space between wheels Sr 0.5m

32 Fig. 1 Initial conceptual chassis design of the TGV

25 the timing belt must be changed every 60,000 miles.

• Damping “Low Frequency, Large Excitation Amplitudes”.

22 Fig. 13 Subaru engine mounts

Steering system geometry.

• The steering must be highly responsive.

22 Fig. 15 Illustration of proposed skid steering [13]

Turning resistance moment can be computed as follows:

22 Fig. 35 Isometric view of first conceptual design of rubber tracking vehicle

throughout the project.

δ Vehicle speed fluctuation m

22 Sys. Dyn.: Int. J. Veh. Mech. Mobility 37, 401–421, (2002).

22 International Conference of the ISTVS, Kobe, Japan, 205-216, (1990).

29 Int. J. Mechan. Sci., 49 (10), 1077-1094, (2007).

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi