Advertisement

Evolutionary algorithms application for improving the tire rolling resistance based on Wismer–Luth model

  • Sajjad DerafshpourEmail author
  • Aref Mardani
  • Morteza Valizadeh
Original Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

Soil and tire interaction is a complex process that involves the exchange of variable stresses along the contact area of soil and tire. Despite this complexity, the description of this process in the form of mathematical models has long been of interest to the researchers. The same complexity has led the wheels and soil interaction patterns to be constantly evolving and optimizing. This evolution has coincided with the scientific progress of mathematics, modeling and computer until today. Nowadays, optimizing and predicting a model based on input variables using machine learning techniques and conventional evolutionary algorithms play an important role in predicting the relationships between input and output. These methods can be far better than the conventional statistical techniques. The modeling and prediction of wheel rolling resistance on the soil have many parameters. Using new techniques such as genetic, BAT and PSO algorithms to optimize them seems to be suitable approaches. The aim of this research is to investigate and optimize the parameters of the Wismer–Luth model using the evolutionary algorithms. To improve the model, the variables of multi-pass, forward velocity and depth of the cone index, are also incorporated to the Wismer–Luth model, and the corresponding parameters are optimized with the BAT algorithm. Analysis of experimental data showed that the correlation of the output of the proposed model with the experimental data is 0.87 where it is 0.77 for the Wismer–Luth model. Furthermore, experimental results in this study showed that there is a significant relationship between rolling resistance and multi-pass effect, neglected in most models.

Keywords

Evolutionary algorithms BAT Rolling resistance Wismer–Luth model Multi-pass Optimization 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Wulfsohn D, Upadhyaya S, Chancellor W (1988) Tractive characteristics of radial ply and bias ply tyres in a California soil. J Terramech 25(2):111–134Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elwaleed A, Yahya A, Zohadie M, Ahmad D, Kheiralla A (2006) Effect of inflation pressure on motion resistance ratio of a high-lug agricultural tyre. J Terramech 43(2):69–84Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taghavifar H, Mardani A (2017) Off-road vehicle dynamics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhao Y, Du X, Lin F, Wang Q, Fu H (2018) Static stiffness characteristics of a new non-pneumatic tire with different hinge structure and distribution. J Mech Sci Technol 32(7):3057–3064Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li H, Zhao Y, Lin F, Zhu M (2018) Nonlinear dynamics modeling and rollover control of an off-road vehicle with mechanical elastic wheel. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 40(2):51Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Battiato A, Diserens E (2017) Tractor traction performance simulation on differently textured soils and validation: a basic study to make traction and energy requirements accessible to the practice. Soil Tillage Res 166:18–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.09.005 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tiwari VK, Pandey KP, Pranav PK (2010) A review on traction prediction equations. J Terramech 47(3):191–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2009.10.002 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taheri S, Sandu C, Taheri S, Pinto E, Gorsich D (2015) A technical survey on terramechanics models for tire–terrain interaction used in modeling and simulation of wheeled vehicles. J Terramech 57:1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2014.08.003 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thangavadivelu S, Taylor R, Clark S, Slocombe J (1994) Measuring soil properties to predict tractive performance of an agricultural drive tire. J Terramech 31(4):215–225Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bekker MG (1956) Theory of land locomotion. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freitag DR, Schafer RL, Wismer RD (1970) Similitude studies of soil-machine systems. J Terramech 7(2):25–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4898(70)90132-1 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turnage G (1972) Tire selection and performance prediction for off-road wheeled-vehicle operations. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on int. soc. terrain-vehicle systemsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Turnage GW (1972) Using dimensionless prediction terms to describe off-road wheeled vehicle performance. ASAE paper No. 72-634. St. Joseph, MI.49085Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rowland, D. (1972). Tracked vehicle ground pressure and its effort on soft ground performance. In: Proceedings of the 4th international ISTVS conference, April 24–28, 1972, Stockholm-Koruna, Sweden, pp 353–384)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brixius, W. (1987). Traction prediction equations for bias ply tires. ASAE paper. 87–1622, p 8Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maclaurin EB (1987) Soil-vehicle interaction. J Terramech 24(4):281–294.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4898(87)90011-5 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wismer R, Luth H (1973) Off-road traction prediction for wheeled vehicles. J Terramech 10(2):49–61Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clark RL (1985) Tractive modelling with the modified Wismer and Luth model. ASAE Paper. 85-1049. St. Joseph (MI) 49085: ASAEGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ashmore C, Burt EC, Turner JL (1985) Predicting tractive performance of log-skidder tires ASAE Paper No. 85-1597. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vechinski C, Johnson C, Raper R (1998) Evaluation of an empirical traction equation for forestry tires. J Terramech 35(1):55–67Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Upadhyaya S, Wulfsohn D, Jubbal G (1989) Traction prediction equations for radial ply tyres. J Terramech 26(2):149–175Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alimardani R, Colvin T, Marleyr S (1989) Verification of the’TERMS. Trans ASAE 32(3):817Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyer MP, Ehrlich IR, Sloss D, Murphy N Jr, Wismer RD, Czako T (1977) International society for terrain-vehicle systems standards. J Terramech 14(3):153–182Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vennik K, Keller T, Kukk P, Krebstein K, Reintam E (2017) Soil rut depth prediction based on soil strength measurements on typical Estonian soils. Biosyst Eng 163:78–86Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taghavifar H, Mardani A (2013) Investigating the effect of velocity, inflation pressure, and vertical load on rolling resistance of a radial ply tire. J Terramech 50(2):99–106Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lyasko M (2010) Multi-pass effect on off-road vehicle tractive performance. J Terramech 47(5):275–294.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2010.05.006 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grisso R, Perumpral J, Zoz F (2006) An empirical model for tractive performance of rubber-tracks in agricultural soils. J Terramech 43(2):225–236Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang Z, Kushwaha R (1999) Applications of neural networks to simulate soil-tool interaction and soil behavior. Can Agric Eng 41(2):119Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hassan A, Tohmaz A (1995) Performance of skidder tires in swamps—comparison between statistical and neural network models. Trans ASAE 38(5):1545–1551Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cheng Z, Lu Z (2018) Semi-empirical model for elastic tyre trafficability and methods for the rapid determination of its related parameters. Biosyst Eng 174:204–218Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cho J, Lee J (2017) Multi-objective optimum design of TBR tire structure for enhancing the durability using genetic algorithm. J Mech Sci Technol 31(12):5961–5969Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Man K, Tang K, Kwong S (1999) Genetic algorithms: concepts and designs. Springer, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yelghi A, Köse C (2018) A modified firefly algorithm for global minimum optimization. Appl Soft Comput 62:29–44Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yu F, Fu X, Li H, Dong G (2016) Improved roulette wheel selection-based genetic algorithm for TSP. In: 2016 international conference on network and information systems for computers (ICNISC), IEEE, pp 151–154Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Haupt RL, Haupt SE (2004) Practical genetic algorithms. Wiley, HobokenzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zamzamian SM, Hosseini SA, Samadfam M (2017) Optimization of the Marinelli beaker dimensions using genetic algorithm. J Environ Radioact 172:81–88Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sobolev A, Gazetdinov A, Samokhin D (2017) Genetic algorithms for nuclear reactor fuel load and reload optimization problems. Nuclear Energy Technol 3(3):231–235Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kennedy J (2011) Particle swarm optimization. In: Sammut C, Webb GI (eds) Encyclopedia of machine learning. Springer, Berlin, pp 760–766Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shanmugavadivu P, Balasubramanian K (2014) Thresholded and optimized histogram equalization for contrast enhancement of images. Comput Electric Eng 40(3):757–768Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang G, Guo L (2013) A novel hybrid bat algorithm with harmony search for global numerical optimization. J Appl Math 2013:1–21MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bekker MG (1969) Introduction to terrain-vehicle systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Coutermarsh B (2007) Velocity effect of vehicle rolling resistance in sand. J Terrramech 44(4):275–291Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pope R (1971) The effect of wheel speed on rolling resistance. J Terrramech 8(1):51–58MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sajjad Derafshpour
    • 1
    Email author
  • Aref Mardani
    • 2
  • Morteza Valizadeh
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering of Biosystems, Faculty of AgricultureUrmia UniversityUrmiaIran
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical Engineering of BiosystemsUrmia UniversityUrmiaIran
  3. 3.Department of Electrical EngineeringUrmia UniversityUrmiaIran

Personalised recommendations