Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 297–307

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Terramechanics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jterra

Three-dimensional dynamic model for off-road vehicles using discrete

body dynamics q
Yaron Franco ⇑, Michal Shani, Gilad Gat, Itzhak Shmulevich
Research Center of Environmental, Water and Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technion, 3200003, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a simple, reliable dynamics model of off-road vehicle operation in real-time (RT) on
Received 1 June 2020 terrain with obstacles. The numerical model was formulated by a new method – DBD (Discrete Body
Revised 2 August 2020 Dynamics). The new method is based on a discrete-element method, where the equations of motion
Accepted 12 August 2020
are linear and simple to solve.
Available online 9 September 2020
In this new method, the suspension systems are composed of soft and stiff springs and dampers (in-
stead of suspension arms and joints constrains), to present the kinematics and dynamics of real suspen-
Keywords:
sion. Reduction of the number of bodies and avoidance of constraints significantly improves model
Vehicle dynamics modeling
Off-road
efficiency and simplicity.
Prediction The tires–soil interaction was modeled using Brixius prediction. Specific soil properties were obtained
Multibody from the classification system for each tire–soil interaction, size, and geometric area. The tire–ground
DBD contact was determined by topographic surface and adjustment of the forces and direction acting on
Tire the tires.
The proposed method allows quick and simple definition of a vehicle. The model is written as an inde-
pendent software infrastructure, enabling easy integration with any other software component.
Simulation results were compared with Siemens’ VL commercial multibody dynamics program. The
performance of the proposed method was very similar to the commercial program (R2 > 0.9), with the sig-
nificant advantage of much higher RT performance.
Ó 2020 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
There is strong demand for autonomous off-road vehicles, for
military maneuvering and navigation and for modern farming in
precision agriculture operations. Building a fully autonomous off-
road vehicle that can reliably navigate and overcome obstacles is
a major challenge. Real-time prediction of the vehicle dynamics
behavior in correspondence with different soil properties and
obstacles is crucial for path planning and maneuvering. In addition,
the vehicle dynamics model is integrated with ground and envi-
ronment data systems that can classify the terrain by soil mechan-
ics parameters and soil surface topography. A high-fidelity vehicle
dynamics model is a fundamental element in the process of pre-
dicting an optimal driving path.
There are commercial programs for predicting vehicle dynamics
based on multibody dynamics modeling, such as Virtual Lab by Sie-
q
Presented at the Proceedings of the 19th International & 14th European-African
Regional Conference of the ISTVS, Budapest, September 25–27, 2017.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: agyaron@technion.ac.il (Y. Franco).
mens, Adams by MSC, and others. These programs typically use
Lagrange formulation to solve the equations of motion. Consider-
ing that dynamic multibody simulations involve the formulation
and numerical integration of complicated systems of nonlinear dif-
ferential equations, real-time prediction of behavior is a formidable
challenge for mechanical engineers, numerical analysts, and soft-
ware developers. According to Rosenthal and Sherman (1986),
‘‘the calculation times are excessively high for even cases of aver-
age complexity, and there are important formulation and imple-
mentation problems that remain to be solved.” In order to
achieve this objective, it is necessary to optimize the formulation
of the dynamic equations, the algorithms for numerical integra-
tion, and the computer implementation (Garcia de Jalon et al.,
1991). A myriad of formulations and algorithms have been pro-
posed by researchers in an effort to develop more efficient, yet gen-
eral simulation algorithms for multibody systems. Evidence of this
may be seen in the ever-increasing calls for a significant reduction
of simulation time in the various applications of multibody algo-
rithms (Anderson and Duan, 1999). Computational speed is there-
fore the most important single consideration in code design (Garcia
de Jalon and Bayo, 1994; Jones, 1988; Schwertassek, 1993).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2020.08.003
0022-4898/Ó 2020 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
298 Y. Franco et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 297–307
Nomenclature
F force vector referred to a local coordinate system that is
attached to the body at its center of mass
Ixx; Iyy; Izz moment of inertia at the center of mass
M moment vector referred to a local coordinate system
that is attached to the body at its center of mass
H angular momentum vector referred to a local coordinate
system that is attached to the body at its center of mass
XCG; YCG; ZCG center of gravity
x center of gravity, position vector of body
x center of gravity, angular velocity vector of body
In addition, it is very challenging to connect those programs to
external systems in order to obtain soil mechanics parameters
and soil surface topography in real-time.
In order to reduce the simulation time, one may use Newton-
Euler formulation. In this method, instead of adding an algebraic
equation for each degree constrained of freedom, we need to
reduce one equation. However, the equations are nonlinear.
Pazooki et al. (2012) developed a model of off-road vehicles with
rear-axle torsion-elastic suspension. The model results agreed very
well with experiments in all respected considered. However, for-
mulation of this model as a generic model to present suspensions
that include revolute and spherical joints, such as double wish-
bone, trailing arm, MacPherson, and the like, is very complex.
A similar method to Newton-Euler formulation is the discrete-
element method (DEM). Designed to model granular materials
(Cundall and Strack, 1979; Shmulevich et al., 2007), this method
describes every particle or cluster of particles of a material and
the forces exerted on each particle by the other particles in contact
with it. Simple mechanical formulations describe the relationship
among the particles. It is possible to show an analogy of the inter-
actions between the soil particles and the interactions between the
vehicle’s components. The particles may be bodies of the vehicle,
such as the chassis and wheels. The relationship among the parti-
cles may be springs and dampers, which connect the vehicle’s
components.
To calculate the forces between the soil and the wheel, it is
important to know the tire deformation and the footprint. In gen-
eral, tire models can be grouped into three main categories: (1)
empirical models, (2) semi-empirical models, and (3) physics-
based models (Taheri et al., 2015a). The most validated and widely
used tire model is the empirical model developed by Brixius, which
is accepted as the standard (ASABE D497.4, 1998). It is a two-
dimensional model, in which the soil is characterized by a single
parameter – cone index (CI), according to ASABE EP542 (2013).
Many semi-empirical models are used for simulations to predict
vehicle performances. Some of them, such as STINA, VDANL, SCM,
and FTIRE, have not been validated experimentally (Taheri et al.,
2015a). Some of them, such as NWVPM and AS2TM, are 2D models.
According to the HSSTM approach (Taheri et al., 2015b), the inter-
action of the tire with the ground is created by a set of massless
bristles, which are defined as tread-contact elements attached to
adjacent belt elements that are distributed all around the tire.
These bristles can represent different deflection and friction char-
acteristics of the tire–ground interaction, using predefined or
user-defined functions. The geometrical location of these tread ele-
ments can be defined in a way that represents the tread character-
istics of the actual tire. Depending on the type of simulation
conducted, the number of mass elements should be allowed to
vary. Technically, the number of modes in the system is dictated
by the number of mass elements. The number of masses also
depends on the resolution of the ground properties. These models
m body mass
g gravity
Dt time step
t time
tcr critical time step
k spring stiffness
c damper constant
are based on Bekker’s (1960) approach. The soil properties for Bek-
ker’s constants require heavy equipment for penetration of the soil
by plates.
Many physics-based models are used in simulations to predict
vehicle performances. Some of them, such as VTIM – Vehicle Ter-
rain Interaction Model (Madsen et al., 2012), Nakashima and
Oida (2004), Wakui and Terumichi (2011), Fervers (2004), and
Xia (2010), have not been validated experimentally (Taheri et al.,
2015a). Others, such as Smith and Peng (2013), Yong et al.
(1978), and Grujicic et al. (2009), do not have lateral forces or com-
bined slip. Yet other codes, such as CRREL (Shoop, 2001), are based
on FEM, and are therefore unsuitable for real-time.
The tire properties, such as tire stiffness, require special exper-
imental equipment. To simplify construction of the vehicle model,
it is possible to predict the tire stiffness by the statistical relation-
ship between tire dimensions and inflation pressure and the tire
stiffness as suggested by Lines and Murphy (1991).
The envelope of the lateral and longitudinal forces may be
assumed to be an ellipse (Janosi et al., 1981). Experiments have
shown that the exponential form of the relationship between lat-
eral force and slip angle is reasonably accurate (Crolla and El-
Razaz, 1987).
In summary, extensive research has been done in an effort to
predict soil–machine interaction for field vehicles, but not to sup-
port real-time (RT) vehicle dynamics off road.
This paper presents a simple, reliable dynamic model for off-
road vehicle operation in RT on terrain with obstacles. The pro-
posed model is named DBD and based on principles of the
discrete-element method, where the equations of motion are linear
and simple to solve rapidly. The suggested model was verified with
a commercial multibody dynamic program based on qualitative
values and time computation. The comparison was demonstrated
on an ATV TM27 manufactured by Tomcar.
2. DEM formulation
Since DEM formulation is the basic approach of the new pre-
sented DBD method, a short explanation of DEM is presented.
The discrete element method (DEM), developed by Cundall and
Strack (1979), is designed to model granular materials. It describes
every particle or particle cluster of a material and the forces acting
on each particle by the other particles in contact with it. Simple
mechanical formulations describe the relationship among the par-
ticles by rheological elements (Fig. 1). The law of motion and inte-
gration is similar to Itasca’s PFC program of DEM. The motion of a
single rigid body is determined by the resultant force and moment
vectors acting upon it and can be described in terms of the trans-
lational motion of a point on the body and the rotational motion
of the body. The translational motion of the center of mass is
described in terms of its position xi , velocity x_ i and acceleration
 Y. Franco et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 297–307 299

ðtþDt Þ ðtþDt Þ ðtþDt Þ

(7) is used to obtain xi . The values of F i and M i , to be
used in the next cycle, are obtained by application of the force-
displacement law.

3. DBD background

The DBD method consists of bodies, which are the particles in

DEM, and forces, which are the rheological elements in DEM. In
DBD, there are no constraints; therefore, the dynamics of each
body can be solved separately. Joints may be built using a set of
stiff springs and dampers, to achieve the kinematics relationship
between bodies. Therefore, this method is suitable for flexible
Fig. 1. Interaction between two particles in DEM model.
multibody systems (where the flexibility is provided by the springs
and dampers). Vehicles are flexible multibody systems, because
€ the joints have bushings and the chassis and suspension arms
xi ; the rotational motion of the body is described in terms of its
are somewhat flexible.
angular velocity x and angular accelerationx _ i.
The bodies in the model include vehicle body, wheels, and axle
The equations of motion can be expressed as two vector equa-
in the case of a solid axle suspension. The body element includes
tions, one of which relates the resultant force to the translational
kinematics information, such as accelerations, velocities, locations
motion, and the other of which relates the resultant moment to
and rotation matrices; dynamics information, such as weights,
the rotational motion. The equation for translational motion can
moments of inertia, and a list of forces and torques acting on the
be written in vector form:
body and the location of their connection to the body. The connec-
F i ¼ mð€xi  gi Þ ð1Þ tion points do not necessarily need to be rigidly attached to the
body; they can also be defined as a relative distance between the
where Fi is the resultant force, the sum of all externally applied
bodies. The body element updates its kinematics information
forces acting on the body; €xis an acceleration vector; m is the total
according to changes in the forces and torques acting on the body.
mass of the body and g is a gravity vector notation [0; 0; 9.81] m/
Force elements connect between two bodies. The forces are
s2.
spring, damper, contact, friction, and tire. The tires are unusual in
The equation for rotational motion can be written in the vector
this respect, since they connect the wheel and the ground, but
form:
the ground is not defined as a body. Force elements update the size
M i ¼ H_ i ð2Þ and direction of the force that passes through the bodies to which
they are connected. The calculation of the forces is based on the
where Mi is the resultant moment acting on the body and H_ i is the distance between the different connection points on the bodies.
angular momentum of the body. This relation is referred to a local The suspension arms, which have low mass and inertia relative
coordinate system that is attached to the body at its center of mass. to the sprung mass, are represented by a set of stiff springs and
The equations of motion are integrated using a centered finite- dampers. These stiff springs and dampers represent the flexibility
difference procedure that involves a time step ofDt. The quantities of the arms and bushings. The methods used to connect the stiff
x_ i and xi are computed at the mid-intervals of t  Dt=2, and the springs and dampers define the kinematic and dynamic suspension
quantities xi, €xi ,Fi and Mi are computed at the primary intervals of behavior. The suspension springs and shock absorbers define the
t  Dt. real spring and shock absorber constants.
The following expressions describe the translational and rota- As mentioned earlier, constraints are impossible. If constraints
tional accelerations at time t in terms of the velocity values at are needed, it is possible to build them using a set of stiff springs
mid-intervals. The accelerations are calculated as and dampers or to ignore the dynamics equation in the constraint
1
ðtþDt=2Þ ðtDt=2Þ
 direction. Fig. 2 shows some connection methods of the stiff
€xði tÞ ¼ x_ i  x_ i ð3Þ springs and dampers set in 2D to define free movement (3 DOF),
Dt
revolute at the body center and revolute outside of the body (2
1
ðtþDt=2Þ  DOF), revolute at the body center (1 DOF), and fix (0 DOF).
x_ ði tÞ ¼ xi ðtDt=2Þ
 xi ð4Þ A significant reduction in the number of bodies in the system
Dt
reduces the calculation time. Since the dynamics of each body
Inserting these expressions into Eqs. (1) and (2) and solving for
are solved separately, the calculation can be done in parallel com-
the velocities at time t  Dt=2 results in
putations. Updating forces is determined according to the equation
ðt Þ
!
Fi for a critical time step – tcr
ðtþDt=2Þ ðtDt=2Þ
x_ i ¼ x_ i þ þ g i Dt ð5Þ rffiffiffiffiffiffi
m mi
tcr ¼ min ð8Þ
! ki
ðt Þ
Mi
x_ ði tþDt=2Þ ¼ x_ ði tDt=2Þ þ þ g i Dt ð6Þ where
m

Finally, the velocities in Eqs. (5) and (6) are used to update the ki – the spring stiffness connected to body i;
position of the body center as mi – mass body i.

ðtþDt Þ ðt Þ ðtþDt=2Þ
xi ¼ xi þ x_ i Dt ð7Þ Time-step size is calculated by dividing tcr by a factor of 3 to be
on the safe side of the Nyquist principle. One can update each of
The calculation cycle for the law of motion can be summarized
ðtDt=2Þ
the system forces in a different time step. In our system, we have
, xi
ðtDt=2Þ ðt Þ ðt Þ ðt Þ
as follows. Given the values of x_ i , xi , F i and M i , three main force components: tire, spring, and construction (stiff
ðtþDt=2Þ
and xi
ðtþDt=2Þ
Eqs. (5) and (6) are used to obtain x_ i . Then, Eq. springs). Each of them has a different stiffness, as shown in Table 1.
300 Y. Franco et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 297–307

Fig. 2. Connection methods of the stiff springs and dampers set in 2D to define free movement (3 DOF), revolute at the body center and revolute outside of the body (2 DOF),
revolute at the body center (1 DOF) and fix (0 DOF).

Table 1 The model of the wheeled vehicle consisted of 5 bodies: a chas-

Time computation complexity, by stiffness – k and critical time step – tcr. sis and 4 wheels. The front suspension was double wishbone, built
Force k tcr Computation complexity of 4 stiff springs and dampers, and the spring and shock absorber of
Tire Low High High the suspension. The rear suspension was a trailing arm, built of 2
Spring Low High Low stiff springs and dampers, and the spring and shock absorber of
Construction High Low Low the suspension. Powertrain and cruise control operated external
forces on the model. The steering control operated a constraint
on the model (therefore, the steering torque could not be calcu-
The critical time step for each component can be calculated using lated). Fig. 3 shows some of these parts on the Tomcar TM27
Eq. (8). The computations for the spring and construction are very side-by-side ATV wheeled vehicle. In this section, modeling of
simple, because they have two connecting points that are defined, some parts of the vehicle will be described.
whereas the connecting points of the tire with ground are numer-
ous and not fixed. This feature of allowing changes in the time step 4.1. The chassis
is important, because, as noted, updating the tire forces requires
large computing resources, and we want to perform this calcula- The chassis is a body with mass of 612.9 kg and inertia of:
tion with the maximum available time step. The different time Ixx = 187.5 kgm2, Iyy = 523.5 kgm2, and Izz = 636 kgm2 at the cen-
steps are synchronized. As a result of these unique features, the ter of mass. A reference coordinate system is located above the
program can work in real time and faster than the vehicle transi- center of the rear suspension at 0.381 m above the ground. The ref-
tion time, without the need for large computing means. erence coordinate’s orientation is same as the axis system of CG
(Fig. 3). The gravity center is located at 0.784 m front to the refer-
4. Wheeled vehicle model ence coordinate system and 0.094 m above the reference coordi-
nate system.
To clarify the new suggested method, we chose to demonstrate Table 2 shows the connection points of the stiff springs and
the method on a simple ATV vehicle. dampers to the body relative to the reference coordinate system.
 Y. Franco et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 297–307 301

Fig. 3. Tomcar TM27 side-by-side ATV model.

Table 2
Location of the connection points of the suspensions in the reference coordinate system.

Suspension Connection point X [m] Y [m] Z [m]

Front suspension Lower arm – front connection 2.1755 0.223 0.103
Lower arm – rear connection 1.8335 0.223 0.103
Upper arm – front connection 2.1755 0.209 0.076
Upper arm – rear connection 1.8335 0.209 0.076
Front spring and shock absorber connection 2.0320 0.211 0.240
Rear suspension Trailing arm connection 0.3910 0.547 0.071
Trailing arm connection 0.3910 0.547 0.071
Rear spring and shock absorber connection 0.3640 0.545 0.500

4.2. The front suspension
The front suspension is a double wishbone (Fig. 4). The joints
between the suspension arms and the chassis have bushings. The
suspension arms have low mass and inertia relative to the sprung
mass. Therefore, to reduce the number of equations, virtual stiff
springs and virtual dampers are used, instead of bodies, to model
the suspension arms. The virtual model stiff springs and virtual
dampers are shown in black in Fig. 4b. The real suspension spring
and shock absorber in the vehicle model are shown on Fig. 4b in
gray color. The magnitude of the two systems are different. The vir-
tual stiff spring stiffness is 5  105N/m and the virtual damping
constant is 1000 Ns/m (it is assumed that this is the bushing stiff-
ness and damping). The real suspension spring and shock absorber
are defined as linear (k = 122625 [N/m], c = 1285 [Ns/m]).
The force from the suspension spring and shock absorber are
distributed among the lower arm connector points according to
the distance between the connection points.
The steering constraint forces on the steering wheel are
neglected at this stage, because we are not interested in the torque
on the steering wheel.

Fig. 4. Real double wishbone suspension (a); Virtual DBD double wishbone suspension (b).
302 Y. Franco et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 297–307
4.3. The rear suspension
The rear suspension is a trailing arm. The suspension arm has
low mass and inertia relative to the sprung mass. Therefore, to
reduce the number of equations, the suspension arm was modeled
as virtual stiff springs and virtual dampers, instead of bodies.
The stiff spring stiffness and damping constant of the suspen-
sion arm, as well as the suspension springs and shock absorber,
are assumed to have the same value as reported in Section 4.2.
4.4. Wheels
In the new approach, the wheels are considered as bodies. The
wheel mass consists of: the wheel, tire and knuckle. The wheel
inertia consists of the shafts and gear inertia. Table 3 presents
the connection points of the suspension to the knuckle, relative
to the wheel center and wheel properties (see Table 4).
4.5. The tire model
The tire model transfers ground forces from the ground to the
wheels according to the topographic surface. Three circumferential
planes, as shown in Fig. 5, represent the 3D tire model. On each
plane, a number of points are sampled to test the penetration of
the tire into the ground. The resolution of the sampling points is
determined by the ground resolution data provided. The volume
confined between the tire and the ground is calculated by integra-
tion of entry points, based on size and the geometrics of the con-
fined volume. The normal force direction and magnitude are
calculated. Direction and magnitude of the shear forces acting on
the tire from the ground are calculated using Brixius prediction
equations, as a function of the normal force. Lines and Murphy’s
(1991) model, which is function of rim diameter, tire width, and
inflation pressure, was used to predict the stiffness of the tire.
4.6. The powertrain
The model of the powertrain system consists of:
4.6.1. The Gasoline engine performance curve: torque versus
engine speed, obtained as a second-order polynomial;
4.6.2. The transmission ratios of the various gears;
4.6.3. High/low gear transfer ratio;
4.6.4. The transfer ratio of the differential;
4.6.5. The type of propulsion (front drive, rear-wheel drive, or
all-wheel drive);
4.6.6. The differential mode (differential in the front, differen-
tial in the rear, or central differential);
4.6.7. The clutch, defined with an exponential delay, to simu-
late the clutch coupling release.
The powertrain properties used in this study are:
RPM to torque [Nm] polynomial coefficients. [0.000003;
0.0193; 58.378], as presented in Fig. 6.
Max RPM: 3500 rpm.
Min RPM: 1500 rpm.
Table 3
Connection points of the suspension to the knuckle and wheels properties.
Wheel Lower ball location [X,Y,Z] in [m]
Front [0,0.129,0.065]
Rear [0,0.207,0.1]
Gear ratio: [3; 2.5; 2; 1.5; 1].)Originally, the vehicle had a CVT
transmission; in our simulation, we used an automatic transmis-
sion where the gear selection is relatively to engine speed).
Differential ratio: 6.429.
4.7. The cruise control
The cruise control is of the pure pursuit type. The reference is
the desirable ground velocity. The controller variable, the torque
of the engine, is determined by the error and the engine limits.
The limits of the engine are: maximum power and torque as func-
tions of engine RPM and maximum and minimum engine RPM.
4.8. The steering control
The steering control is of the pure pursuit type, where the con-
troller output is the steering angle instead of the steering torque.
There is a constraint between the steering angles of the front right
and the front left wheels, according to Ackermann steering geom-
etry. The error is the distance between look ahead in the direction
of the vehicle and the desirable path.
5. Description of the model
 A three-dimensional dynamic model, based on the discrete
body-dynamics method formulation for real time was devel-
oped and tested. The model inputs are: vehicle specification,
Terrain and materials map classification, its specification mate-
rial, and the desired path. The model provides predictions of the
vehicle trafficability, kinematic and dynamic time-dependent
driving parameters, and more. A general description of the
model is presented in Fig. 7.
5.1. Model inputs
 Vehicle specifications
The properties of each vehicle are stored in database
containing:
Information on the system elements: geometric dimensions,
weight, and moment of inertia;
The spring constants information, location in relation to body
length from a free position;
The damping coefficient of the system components;
Tire data (dimensions and inflation pressure);
Data transmission (power train differential and engine data);
Safety parameters (maximum roll and pitch, angles, maximum
sinkage, and maximum constraint of the vehicle for ground topog-
raphy inclination angles).
 Terrain and materials map classification
The DBD dynamic vehicle model obtains application-specific
topography and mechanical properties relative to the spatial posi-
tion of the tires. The terrain classification can be represented as an
image in which each pixel represents a material. Each material
type is connected to a database that stores its mechanical
properties.
Upper ball location [X,Y,Z] in [m] Mass [kg] Inertia [kgm2]
[0,0.167,0.119] 28.55 [1,60,1]
[0,0.207,0.1] 40 [1,60,1]
 Y. Franco et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 297–307 303

Table 4
The tire properties.

Tire Rim dia. [in] Width [mm] Torus height Tire damper [Ns/m] Tire type Inflation press. [psi]
Tire width

Front 12 203.2 0.8125 500 radial 25

Rear 12 304.8 0.5833 500 radial 25

Fig. 5. Tire model.

Fig. 6. Engine torque curve as a function of engine RPM.

304 Y. Franco et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 297–307
Fig. 7. General description of the model.
The topography may be represented by a regular grid or a TIN
(triangulated irregular network).
The classified image and the topography can reach an accuracy
of a few centimeters per pixel without detriment to the calculation
rate.
 Desired path
One can specify a travelling path as a string of GPS coordinates.
A steering control based on a proportional controller follows the
desired path. The model provides quantitative predictions of traffi-
cability values for the specific path. As a default, if no path is
defined, the vehicle will try to move in a straight line according
to the initial location with the primary steering control. The speed
control, also based on a proportional controller, tries to converge to
the desired speed. When there is a trafficability problem, the
model automatically reduces the speed of the vehicle.
5.2. Software
The general flowchart of the software developed for the model
is presented in Fig. 8. It shows the relationship between the body
and the forces for a period of one step. The software has two main
advantages. The first is that it offers a generic solution. The vehicle
model is object-oriented, which makes it simple to incorporate
changes such as number of axles, type of suspensions, and more.
The second advantage is the ability to connect to external systems.
The software is independent, so it can be integrated with any con-
trol software.
Fig. 8. Program flowchart.
6. Research method
6.1. Model verification
In order to test the model, the results of simulation of an off-
road vehicle, Tomcar TM27, using the new developed method,
were compared with those obtained using the commercial Sie-
mens’ VL multibody software, which is based on the Lagrange
equations.
6.2. Multibody model
Fig. 9 shows the Tomcar TM27 model that was developed in Sie-
mens’ VL. The points where the suspensions attach to the vehicle
chassis were modeled using bushing (revolute, spherical, etc.). All
other points of body-to-body connections were modeled using
joints (revolute, spherical, etc.). Table 5 presents a list of the model
joints and constraints and the bodies that were connected by each
joint. Table 6 presents a list of the number of bodies and degrees of
freedom of the four subsystems that comprise the model.
The tires were defined as a simple-tire model built into the soft-
ware and suitable for road travel. The tire parameters (front: 25x8-
12; rear: 26x12-12) were obtained from the manufacturer and the
statistical models by Crolla et al. (1990) and by Lines and Murphy
(1991).
6.3. The DBD model
The DBD model of Tomcar TM27 was built with the same
parameters as in the Siemens’ VL software model. The suspensions
 Y. Franco et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 297–307 305

Fig. 9. Multibody dynamic model of Tomcar TM27 vehicle (right) and side view of the vehicle passing over the obstacle (left).

Table 5 of bodies, which are canceled, where added separately between the
List of joints and constraints in the multibody dynamics model. bodies that are connected to the canceled bodies. For the purpose
Body 1 Body 2 Joint/Constraint No. of of comparison, the tire model was adapted to fit the tire model in
type joints the multibody software. However, it should be noted that the tire
Lower control arm Chassis Revolute 2 configurations were not the same, and this might have caused
Upper control arm Chassis Revolute 2 some differences in the results obtained from the two different
Knuckle Lower control arm Spherical 2 programs.
Knuckle Upper control arm Spherical 2
Rack Chassis Screw 1
Tie rod Rack Universal 2 6.4. Simulation
Tie rod Knuckle Spherical 2
Front wheel Knuckle Revolute 2
Shock absorber Chassis Universal 4
Simulations were performed to examine the vehicle’s behavior
cylinder when traveling at a constant speed on a road with a single obstacle
Shock absorber Shock absorber Translational 4 that had a rigid radius of 200 mm. Fig. 9 shows the side view of the
piston cylinder vehicle when the front wheels passed over the obstacle.
Lower control arm Shock absorber Spherical 2
piston
Trailing arm Chassis Revolute 2 7. Results
Rear wheel Trailing arm Revolute 2
Trailing arm Shock absorber Spherical 2
piston The results presented here describe the travel of the vehicle at a
Main shaft Chassis Revolute 1 velocity of 5 m/s. In all the illustrations, DBD is compared with
Differential sun Chassis Revolute 1 simulation of multibody dynamics using the Siemens’ VL software.
Differential pinion Differential sun Revolute 1
The kinematics relative to the horizontal position of the vehicle are
Right differential Differential sun Revolute 1
pinion described in Fig. 10. The illustration on the right describes the posi-
Left differential Differential sun Revolute 1 tion of the center of gravity of the chassis on the Z axis, and the
pinion illustration on the left describes the pitch angle (negative value
Main shaft Differential sun Gear 1 describe pitch up according to the reference system as shown in
Differential pinion Right differential Gear 1
pinion
Fig. 3). The figure shows that there was a good match between
Differential pinion Left differential Gear 1 the two computation methods regarding the vehicle’s kinetics,
pinion with a maximum error of less than 4% between the different
Right differential Rear wheel Gear 1 simulations.
pinion
Fig. 11 presents a comparison between the forces vs. time calcu-
Left differential Rear wheel Gear 1
pinion lated using the two methods. The figure on the right depicts the
forces of the rear spring; the figure on the left depicts the emerging
power in one of the bushing front suspensions that connected the
Table 6
vehicle chassis. As seen, a good match was obtained regarding the
Details of subsystems of the Tomcar TM27 vehicle model. former, with a maximum error of less than 3% between the simu-
lations using different methods. In the left-hand figure, the results
Subsystem Name Degrees of Number of Remark
freedom bodies
were less well-matched: the trends were the same, but the rigid-
spring power in our system was restrained more quickly than
Chassis 6 1 Main body
Front suspension 28 14 Double wishbone
the bushing power in the multibody software. The DBD model is
Rear suspension 14 10 Trailing arm different in some aspects from the VL model, such as: tire model
Differential 1 5 Mode: Open and neglecting the mass of light weight bodies. Those differences
Total 49 30 may explain the less well-matched between the two curves.
Fig. 12 shows a comparison of FFT for the linear acceleration of
the Z axis of the vehicle chassis. It shows a good match between
the two methods, and the calculated frequencies had the same val-
were built with a set of stiff springs and dampers, as described in ues. It should be noted that a number of additional speeds that are
Sections 4.2 and 4.3. The Ackermann angles and the differential not presented in this article were also tested; all of them were
were built by an expression instead of bodies and joints. The mass well-matched.
306 Y. Franco et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 297–307
Fig. 10. Comparison of vehicle Z axis vs. position, (right), pitch angle ‘vs. position (left).
Fig. 11. Comparison of forces operating in the system vs. time. On right – rear right spring; on left – bushing that connects the front suspension to the chassis.
A comparison of time computations by the two methods for
four similar scenarios can be seen in Table 7. Scenario A is over-
coming a semi-round-shaped obstacle with a diameter of 200 mm.
The simulation began with 2 sec for stabilization, followed by
acceleration to 5 m/sec with limitation of the powertrain. Scenario
B is overcoming 25 m of a sinusoidal path with an amplitude of
100 mm and a wavelength of 5 m. The simulation began with 2
sec for stabilization, followed by acceleration to 2 m/sec with lim-
itation of the powertrain. Scenario C is driving in a straight line on
Fig. 12. FFT comparison of the system.
a plane surface with random amplitudes between 0 and 100 mm.
The simulation began with 2 sec for stabilization, followed by
acceleration to 2 m/sec with limitation of the powertrain for 8[s].
Scenario D was like Scenario C, but with random amplitudes
between 0 and 200 mm.
It can be concluded that the DBD method was faster in all four
scenarios – A, B, C, and D – compared with Siemens’ VL calcula-
tions, by factors of 1.9, 2.0, 4.7, and 8, respectively, for the specific
demonstrated vehicle. In addition, in the all scenarios, the DBD cal-
culation time is shorter than real time (RT) by factors of 2.2, 2.5, 2.1
and 2.1 respectively to the scenarios. The tire circumference was
divided into 30 points in the DBD method. The DBD calculation
technique had no sensitivity to the rough surface in contrast to
Siemens’ VL program. For all scenarios, the DBD calculation time
was shorter than real time; with multibody dynamics, scenarios C
and D (which were obtained a realistic road) were far from real time.
It can be seen from Table 7 that for the presented vehicle, the
time for computation of the new code was half that for simulation
of a simple road, and 1/8 of the time for a realistic road obtained
from Siemens’ VL commercial program.
8. Summary and conclusions
A new efficient computation dynamic method was developed
for online dynamic prediction of off-road vehicles. The method is
based on DEM formulation. The proposed method was demon-
strated using an ATV TM27 manufactured by Tomcar Israel. The
method was verified using the Siemens’ VL commercial multibody
dynamics program.
The results indicate a good correlation between the results from
the newly DBD simulation codes and the computation by the
commercial multibody dynamics program. As noted earlier
 Y. Franco et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 297–307
Table 7
Comparison of time results for the two computation methods, in four scenarios.
Comparison Road description Driving speed [m/s] Vehicle transition time [s]
A Semi-round-shaped obstacle 5 11
B 5 peaks of a sinusoidal path 2 20
C Fine roughness road 2 10
D Coarse roughness road 2 10
(Section 6.3), the codes for the tire models were not the same; this
could explain some of the different results indicated by the com-
parison. The time computation of the new code was half for simple
road or 1/8 of the time for a realistic road compared with that
obtained from VL, for the presented vehicle. The DBD vehicle
model is simple enough to be used in real-time prediction of path
navigation for off-road applications.
Further research is highly recommended to verify the findings
experimentally and extend the method for predicting different sus-
pensions and vehicles.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Research Center of Environ-
mental, Water and Agriculture Engineering of the Faculty of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at the Technion-Israel Institute of
Technology for its support. This research was partially supported
by Elbit System Ltd.
References
Anderson, K.S., Duan, S., 1999. A hybrid parallelizable low-order for dynamics of
multi-rigid-body Part I, Chain systems. Math. Comput. Modell. 30, 193–215.
ASABE D497.4, 1998. Agricultural machinery management data.
ASABE EP542, 2013. Procedures for using and reporting data obtained with the soil
cone penetrometer.
Bekker, M.G., 1960. Off-the-road Locomotion. University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor.
Crolla, D.A., El-Razaz, A.S.A., 1987. A review of the combined lateral and longitudinal
force generation of tyres on deformable surfaces. J. Terramech. 24 (3), 199–225.
Crolla, D.A., Horton, D.N.L., Stayner, R.M., 1990. Effect of tyre modelling on tractor
ride vibration predictions. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 47, 55–77.
Cundall, P.A., Strack, O.D.L., 1979. A discrete numerical model for granular
assemblies. Géotechnique 29 (1), 47–65.
Fervers, C.W., 2004. Improved FEM simulation model for tire–soil interaction. J.
Terramech. 41 (2), 87–100.
307
Siemens’ VL Calculation time [s] DBD Calculation time [s]
9.6 5.0
16.0 8.1
22.0 4.7
38.0 4.7
García de Jalón, J., Avello, A., Cuadrado, J., 1991. An efficient computational method
for real time multibody dynamic simulation in fully cartesian coordinates.
Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 92, 377–395.
Garcia de Jalon, J., Bayo, E., 1994. Kinematic and Dynamic Simulation of Multibody
Systems: The Real-time Challenge. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Grujicic, M., Marvi, H., Arakere, G., Haque, I., 2009. A finite element analysis of
pneumatic-tire/sand interactions during off-road vehicle travel. Multi Model.
Mat. Struct. 6 (2), 284–308.
Janosi, Z.J., I.O. Kamm and G. Wray. 1981. Tire turning forces under on and off-road
conditions. Proc. 7th Int. Conf., ISTVS, Calgary, late submission.
Jones, R.E., 1988. Multi-flex body dynamics for control design. In: Proceedings of the
Workshop on Multibody Simulation, JPL D-5190, Pasadena, CA, pp. 543–549.
Lines, J.A., Murphy, K., 1991. The stiffness of agricultural tractor tyres. J. Terramech.
28 (1), 49–64.
Madsen, J., Negrut, D., Reid, A., Seidl, A., Ayers, P., Bozdech, G., Freeman, J., O’Kins, J.,
2012. A physics-based vehicle/terrain interaction model for soft soil off-road
vehicle simulations. SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 5 (1), 280–290.
Nakashima, H., Oida, A., 2004. Algorithm and implementation of soil–tire contact
analysis code based on dynamic FE–DE method. J. Terramech. 41 (2-3), 127–
137.
Pazooki, A., Rakheja, S., Cao, D., 2012. Modeling and validation of off-road vehicle
ride dynamics. Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 28, 679–695.
Rosenthal, D.E., Sherman, M.A., 1986. High performance multibody simulations via
symbolic equation manipulation and Kane’s method. J. Astronaut. Sci. 34 (3),
223–239.
Schwertassek, R., 1993. Reduction of multibody simulation time by appropriate
formulation of dynamical system equations. In: Proceedings of the NATO
Advanced Study Institute on Computer-Aided Analysis of Rigid and Flexible
Mechanical Systems, Troia, Portugal, 9, pp. 447–482.
Shmulevich, I., Rubinstein, D., Asaf, Z., 2007. Chapter 4: Discrete element method for
soil-machine interactions. In: Upadhuyaya, S.K. (Ed.), Soil Tillage. American
Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Press.
Shoop, S.A., 2001. Finite Element Modeling of Tire–terrain Interaction. US Army
Corps of Engineers, Hanover, NH.
Smith, W., Peng, H., 2013. Modeling of wheel–soil interaction over rough terrain
using the discrete element method. J. Terramech. 50 (5–6), 277–287.
Taheri, Sh., Sandu, C., Taheri, S., Pinto, E., Gorsich, D., 2015a. A technical survey on
Terramechanics models for tire–terrain interaction used in modeling and
simulation of wheeled vehicles. J. Terramech. 57, 1–22.
Taheri, Sh., Sandu, C., Taheri, S., 2015b. Hybrid soft soil tire model (HSSTM), Part I:
Tire material and structure modeling. Report by the Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA and by U.S. Army TARDEC, MI,
USA. PDF Url : ADA616952, 40p.
Wakui, F., Terumichi, Y., 2011. Numerical simulation of tire–ground system
considering soft ground characteristics. J. Syst. Des. Dyn. 5 (8), 486–500.
Xia, K., 2010. Finite element modeling of tire/terrain interaction: application to
predicting soil compaction and tire mobility. J. Terramech. 48 (2), 113–123.
Yong, R.N., Fattah, E.A., Boonsinsuk, P., 1978. Analysis and prediction of tyre-soil
interaction and performance using finite elements. J. Terramech. 15 (1), 43–63.